Iggy Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 His take on Americans is a classic... Which one? You have a link? Not without the Black Panthers, he didn't. And his entire campaign was dedicated to liberating an oppressed people - they were oppressed in the first place largely due to being delibrately and overtly and disarmed by their local governments, placing them at the mercy of vigilantes and thugs with weapons and the official wink and nod. The idea is not to find oneself in King's, or say Gandhi's, position. The disarming of black people under Jim Crow was not done to keep them from overthrowing the US government. Taking up arms against tyranny is taking up arms against the petty and local means of tyranny's implementation. Amen brother!
MonDie Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) Haven't you heard the angry speeches given by Hitler? IGGY's response: Sure, but that's just how Germans sound... Compare Hitler's political strategies were very aggressive. Source of the following quotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power One of his duties was to report on[11] "subversive" political groups, as ordered by his superiors. [...] [H]is commanders assigned Hitler, in his role as investigator, to attend a meeting of the small Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (German Workers' Party, abbreviated DAP) on 12 September 1919.[12][13] [...] The audience member (Hitler in Mein Kampf disparagingly called him the "professor") asserted that Bavaria should be wholly independent from Germany and should secede from Germany and unite with Austria to form a new South German nation.[16] The volatile Hitler arose and scolded the unfortunate "professor," using his astonishing speaking skills and eventually causing the "professor" to leave the meeting before its adjournment.[17] After Hitler was made the leader of the Nazi party: On 14 September 1921, Hitler and a substantial number of SA members and other Nazi party adherents disrupted a meeting at the Lowenbraukeller of the Bavarian League. This federalist organization objected to the centralism of the Weimar Constitution, but accepted its social program. The League was led by Otto Ballerstedt, an engineer whom Hitler regarded as "my most dangerous opponent." One Nazi, Hermann Esser, climbed upon a chair and shouted that the Jews were to blame for the misfortunes of Bavaria, and the Nazis shouted demands that Ballerstedt yield the floor to Hitler.[26] The Nazis beat up Ballerstedt and shoved him off the stage into the audience. Both Hitler and Esser were arrested, and Hitler commented notoriously to the police commissioner, "It's all right. We got what we wanted. Ballerstedt did not speak." [27] Hitler was eventually sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and ended up serving only a little over one month. Inspired by Benito Mussolini's March on Rome Hitler decided that a coup d'état was the proper strategy to seize control of the country. In May 1923, elements loyal to Hitler within the army helped the SA to procure a barracks and its weaponry, but the order to march never came. A pivotal moment came when Hitler led the Beer Hall Putsch, an attempted coup d'état on 8–9 November 1923. After it failed, Hitler was put on trial for treason, gaining great public attention.[28] In a rather spectacular trial in which Hitler endeavored to turn the tables and put democracy and the Weimar Republic on trial as traitors to the German people, he was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment. He was eventually paroled, served only a little over eight months after his sentencing in early 1924. Edited January 6, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die
Iggy Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 Compare How extraordinarily literal. Even when someone posts a stand up comedian you refuse to see the joke. Are you a bot?
john5746 Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 Not without the Black Panthers, he didn't. And his entire campaign was dedicated to liberating an oppressed people - they were oppressed in the first place largely due to being delibrately and overtly and disarmed by their local governments, placing them at the mercy of vigilantes and thugs with weapons and the official wink and nod. The idea is not to find oneself in King's, or say Gandhi's, position. The disarming of black people under Jim Crow was not done to keep them from overthrowing the US government. Taking up arms against tyranny is taking up arms against the petty and local means of tyranny's implementation. Well, at least that's a more plausible scenario, a local govt. goes rogue and the federal doesn't care. I just don't agree that everyone being armed would have made all past injustices better. Native Americans were armed, the Confederacy was armed. I think you underestimate just how much hatred, fear and loathing go into this type of oppression. I'm sure it would have helped some on an individual basis, but basically you are talking mafia wars. If the enemy has a stick you bring a bigger stick. What I learn from the plight of African Americans is that we should not treat people differently based on race, creed, sex, etc. That was the issue, not guns. So yeah, I would be against a law banning guns or anything based on race, creed or sex. Although, based on your argument, maybe we should have affirmative action gun rights. Make bushmasters, etc cheaper for oppressed minorities? I really liked Capn's link regarding Nukes. If you think about it, if we are really concerned about a future US tyrannical government, then maybe every country should have some nukes for protection? Regardless, if I accept your argument, I think it reasonable that we still limit guns to those used for home protection. No need for 100 round magazine clips, 10 guns, etc. I have never been arguing to completely disarm the populace, just have reasonable limits. Having a gun or two to protect your family multiplied in a neighborhood would also be a reasonable deterrent from a rogue local police force. Of course, as has been mentioned before, having people armed this way makes every call a potential gun fight, putting police under a more heightened state of alert and more armed. This can create an arms race if dumber minds prevail. So, can we move forward and discuss reasonable limits? Should there be any limits? Magazine size? Number of guns? Gun type? Ammo limits?
Moontanman Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 I keep coming back to this song in this gun thread...
MonDie Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 How extraordinarily literal. Even when someone posts a stand up comedian you refuse to see the joke. Are you a bot? You think I am a bot. I do not think I am a bot. I think I am Eli, the galactic embassador.
rigney Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) keep coming back to this song in this gun thread... This is a good example of how a knife can be just as bad in a fight and Croce explains it best. Edited January 7, 2013 by rigney
overtone Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 Well, at least that's a more plausible scenario, a local govt. goes rogue and the federal doesn't care. That's not just "plausible", but a long standing pattern of historical event - including quite recent history in the US, within the personal memory of lots of middleaged adults. I just don't agree that everyone being armed would have made all past injustices better. Native Americans were armed' date=' the Confederacy was armed. [/quote'] The various oppressed tribes of Reds were not armed, during their decades of oppression after losing the wars. They had been disarmed, by the victors. (And they lost the wars in part for lack of adequate weaponry for their militia). It was after a fair number of young men on a couple of reservations armed themselves, actually (1960s - 70s), even engaging in shootouts with Federal agents, that things started to change a bit faster. Maybe coincidence. And of course the Confederacy was a collection of armed folks protecting their wealth - a population of carefuly and rigidly disarmed folk they owned, who were doing their heavy labor under coercive threat. No one would want to be one of the disarmed folk they owned, eh? They kept them disarmed for decades, too, long after losing the war and the technical ownership, able to do that because they themselves had not been disarmed by the victors. And that difference in weaponry underlay the possibility of decades more coercion and oppression. - - - No need for 100 round magazine clips, 10 guns, etc. I have never been arguing to completely disarm the populace, just have reasonable limits. - - - - So, can we move forward and discuss reasonable limits? Should there be any limits? Magazine size? Number of guns? Gun type? Ammo limits? There is obviously a large and varied region of mutual agreement between the more curb-favoring and the less curb-favoring Americans. But the entire discussion has been hijacked by fanatics on both sides (and that is the only political issue in the country I think can be described accurately in that way). My leaning is to take an opportunity that has suddenly arisen in the mainstream after generations of failed effort by liberals: decent provision of mental health care in the US. When the authoritarian right and left both agree to get out of the way on something like that, take it, is my recommendation. Never mind the guns - they aren't that big a problem, we've been living with the status quo for centuries now, and the current prospect of "doing something about it" looks like a really serious further encroachment and coercion by a dubiously motivated State. Go for something good.
ParanoiA Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 Some interesting facts to render some much needed perspective within the whirlwind emotion we're using to generate new laws... http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/01/10/reasons-5-facts-on-guns-and-gun-violence 1. Violent crime – including violent crime using guns – has dropped massively over the past 20 years. 2. Mass shootings have not increased in recent years. 3. Schools are getting safer. 4. There Are More Guns in Circulation Than Ever Before. 5. “Assault Weapons Bans” Are Generally Ineffective. I meant gun owners perceive Obama as taking away an unalienable right to bear arms... which is untrue except at the margins. And now with the threat of executive order, these perceptions are being validated. Exploiting tragedy for political ends is a prominent component in this debate now. It would be more obvious to the anti-gun crowd if a different set of politics were at play. If we had a president, say George W Bush, that had been previously vocally hostile to free speech... "they get bitter, they cling to free speech and diversity". And then after a horrifying mass shooting we discover hate speech on their facebook page, and subscriptions to fringe extremist speech. Then to watch, in dismay, as this speech is interpreted as the problem. "How long are we going to allow hate speech to fuel mass killers and murder our children?" becomes the standard line, instead of blame on guns, mental illness, and etc. Followed by a Congress that "must act now", speeches from George Bush that "there will be action" to deal with speech, followed further by threat of executive order to limit speech. Suddenly the notion that this tragedy is being exploited to further the ends of a president and party hostile to free speech would be shouted from the mountain tops. Just something to think about. Obama is validating every paranoid accusation about his hostility toward personal sovereignty and the role of guns in the republic. It does appear that anti-gun ideology is exploiting this tragedy. None of the solutions being discussed by Biden's "task force" would have interfered with Adam Lanza. None of them. If the tragedy that Adam Lanza executed is the "cause for action" then why aren't we coming up with solutions that would have caught him? This is a stiff point that validates the argument for political exploitation. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Unknown
overtone Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 Just something to think about. Obama is validating every paranoid accusation about his hostility toward personal sovereignty and the role of guns in the republic. And so the crazy revs up - five years of being made fools of has taught the Neo-Confederacy nothing at all about who to get their info from, who to lean on for analysis and interpretation, where to find out what's going on in the real world.
ParanoiA Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) And the dog and pony show continues... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/kids-write-letters-to-obama-on-gun-control/ This morning the White House released handwritten letters to the President from some of the children who will be at the White House when President Obama unveils his plan to prevent gun violence. This is another example of how this is about ideological opportunity, not to "save children". As has been stated many times, by many gun rights advocates, not one of the proposed solutions by Biden's Task Force would do anything to stop Adam Lanza and this mass murder at Sandy Hook. But that doesn't stop the Obama administration from using children from that very school to shield the outcries of his overreach. How freaking offensive. More "for the children" emotional crap that does nothing for the children, rather it provides cover for executive overreach and cowards that don't want to debate honestly. Trot out the victims democrats...just like you always do when you can't win on the issues and everyone knows you're full of sh!t. I have no faith at all in the Obama administration's intentions. Zero. This is a travesty for personal sovereignty. Every gun rights advocate sees right through this bull. It's not remotely difficult. Amazing how many minds are on vacation right now buying this complete crap... This makes me want to join the NRA. Great job... Edited January 16, 2013 by ParanoiA
Moontanman Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 I just saw a commercial that said the president was a hypocrite because his children are protected by armed guards, the dog and pony show has more than a bit of republican dogs and ponies...
ParanoiA Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 I just saw a commercial that said the president was a hypocrite because his children are protected by armed guards, the dog and pony show has more than a bit of republican dogs and ponies... No, that dog and pony show would be more like the NRA trotting out some kids that were saved from home invaders by their parents with guns, or pictures of children that were killed during a violent crime because their parents did *not* have guns, or only had a 7 bullet clip..."Please Mr. Obama, don't take my mommy's gun away or she can't save me"..."Mr. President, why would you not let my mommy have a gun to save my brother? He is dead now" But we don't see that, because the cowards that use these displays are currently on one side of this debate, the wrong side. And since they can't win logically, they use emotion to circumvent the critical thinking parts of the brain. Like I said, if we were talking about GWB and controlled speech it would suddenly be obvious to everyone. But instead, it's Obama and gun control, two favorites of left wingers. So we're divided right down the middle, again..or still. However you want to put it. In the election of 2012, the people sent gridlock right back to Washington, because that's how we are as a country. Don't you just love federal government? They divide the american people more than any enemy could ever hope for.
overtone Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) Trot out the victims democrats...just like you always do when you can't win on the issues and everyone knows you're full of sh!t. And all the "both sides do it" rhetoric is laid aside, in the rare case where it would be accurately employed. Can you remember back even a little ways, and hear the faint echoes of "911! 911!" during the largest expansion and overreach of Executive Branch power since Lincoln in the middle of the Civil War? I can. That's how I know that this: Like I said, if we were talking about GWB and controlled speech it would suddenly be obvious to everyone is complete bullshit. I was there, when we were trying to talk about that and far worse, and it wasn't some advisory panel meeting in public and handing recommendations in either. And it was not "obvious to everyone" - you couldn't get the gun rights advocates to pay the slightest attention to it, or see the obvious right in front of their faces. They're living with an executive branch their guy set up (actually, a far more competently run and moderate version) while they cheered and voted and sneered and spit on the hippies - and they sure don't like it now, but it's hard to sympathize. We're still wiping the spit off, from when we tried to warn them. But we don't see that, because the cowards that use these displays are currently on one side of this debate, Baloney. The reason you don't see that kind of stuff is because there isn't any available - those are imaginary, presumed, and hypothetical circumstances, not real life events that anyone has on record. The NRA and their rightwing support has no honor, and no honesty, no integrity, and no principles - look at the last few years of political ads. But never mind - we're still here, still willing to pick up the rock again if we can get some hint of cooperation from you guys. But you hae to quit saying stupid shit like this: But instead, it's Obama and gun control, two favorites of left wingers. So we're divided right down the middle, again..or still. Neither Obama nor gun control is a favorite of the left wing, in general. We keep telling you that, and you keep not listening. And when you do finally get that through your thick skull, you will understand how offensive it is to describe this situation as "we are divided right down the middle". "We" are not the problem here. Look, this isn't some President suspending habeus corpus and setting up black site torture prisons for people who say the wrong words on their tapped phones. Before we get too hot and bothered about the looming jackbooted tyranny of Joe Biden's advisory task force, let's see the actual laws, eh? Edited January 16, 2013 by overtone
ParanoiA Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) And all the "both sides do it" rhetoric is laid aside, in the rare case where it would be accurately employed. Can you remember back even a little ways, and hear the faint echoes of "911! 911!" during the largest expansion and overreach of Executive Branch power since Lincoln in the middle of the Civil War? Sure I do...which is why I qualified this observation just above that sentence: But we don't see that, because the cowards that use these displays are currently on one side of this debate, the wrong side. And since they can't win logically, they use emotion to circumvent the critical thinking parts of the brain. The both sides do it is actually quite accurate the majority of the time. That's why each side has such a hard time bullshitting each other...it is not rare in the least. I was there, when we were trying to talk about that and far worse, and it wasn't some advisory panel meeting in public and handing recommendations in either. And it was not "obvious to everyone" - you couldn't get the gun rights advocates to pay the slightest attention to it, or see the obvious right in front of their faces. They're living with an executive branch their guy set up (actually, a far more competently run and moderate version) while they cheered and voted and sneered and spit on the hippies - and they sure don't like it now, but it's hard to sympathize. We're still wiping the spit off, from when we tried to warn them. I'm sorry, this is absolutely false. We were not talking about how to control speech to prevent more 9/11's. You're lost in your previous rant about the Patriot Act, and how rare it is that both sides do the same things...funny enough, yet again, Obama and the democrats had no problem with the Patriot Act on their watch. See? Not rare at all, my friend. Baloney. The reason you don't see that kind of stuff is because there isn't any available - those are imaginary, presumed, and hypothetical circumstances, not real life events that anyone has on record. The NRA and their rightwing support has no honor, and no honesty, no integrity, and no principles - look at the last few years of political ads. Ha ha, um, try reading about the Alabama woman that just protected herself and two kids with a .38 revolver. That's just recent memory from pop culture news. I haven't even googled yet, for the thousands of examples NRA could use to trot out emotional arguments with letters from kids their parents made them write. Edited January 16, 2013 by ParanoiA
overtone Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) Sure I do...which is why I qualified this observation just above that sentence: Quote But we don't see that, because the cowards that use these displays are currently on one side of this debate, But the qualification is not accurate, as I noted. People who use such displays (9/11 provided a very clear example) are currently on "both sides" (deception) of the debate - predominantly on the NRA side, actually. Ha ha, um, try reading about the Alabama woman that just protected herself and two kids with a .38 revolver. Which doesn't match your description - a relevant point, because the recommendations of the task force would not necessarily interfere with that Alabama woman. Hence, in part, the inability of the NRA and related wingies to employ such examples as described - they don't want to provide the opportunity for the Biden recommendations to be seen as innocuous or without serious constraint on gun owners, in such emotional and memorable circumstances. It's silly to even suggest that the people who Swiftboated Kerry are constrained in the least by propriety, integrity, scruples, etc. I'm sorry, this is absolutely false. We were not talking about how to control speech to prevent more 9/11's. Yes we were, among other matters much worse, and no: what I posted there is quite true of that time. It's still true, actually. As I noted, it was very difficult to get the attention of the faction now loudest in defense of gun rights. It still is, apparently. The situation is not, as claimed, "obvious to everyone". Edited January 16, 2013 by overtone
ParanoiA Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 But the qualification is not accurate, as I noted. People who use such displays (9/11 provided a very clear example) are currently on "both sides" (deception) of the debate - predominantly on the NRA side, actually. Wrong, 9/11 victims were *not* on display while George Bush signed the Patriot Act. He was flanked by Congressmen, FBI and etc - not victims that we are not allowed to counter or question lest we be heartless, selfish animals of privacy. He was surrounded by people we routinely question as even human beings. Show me the NRA victim dog and pony show you claim happened or is happening. The common link between 9/11 and Sandy Hook and the predictable "both sides do it" is the emotion component to getting something done swiftly - and 66 democrats dessented and didn't fall for it. Just like Sandy Hook, the push was to act, act, act, no matter whose liberties were to be compromised. The uncommon link between 9/11 and Sandy Hook was that the NRA and George Bush administration did not hide behind victims of 9/11 when signing it into law. There were no parade of sobbing victim's families standing behind him. Obama used victims of Sandy Hook in his dog and pony show. That was my point and I'm not going to let you forget it. I'm offended by that, especially when what he signed under their cover does *nothing* to stop another Adam Lanza. Adam Lanza would have still successfully shot up that school with all of these new laws and recommendations in place. Morally bankrupt to use those kids that way. Which doesn't match your description - a relevant point, because the recommendations of the task force would not necessarily interfere with that Alabama woman. Hence, in part, the inability of the NRA and related wingies to employ such examples as described - they don't want to provide the opportunity for the Biden recommendations to be seen as innocuous or without serious constraint on gun owners, in such emotional and memorable circumstances. Actually it does match my description because she successfully defended her family with a gun. I know it's not on the chopping block, but it's still an emotional appeal with little kids "Please don't take my mommy's gun away Mr President". Granted, an effective display would require a quick google search for the latest victims of violent crime where the victim didn't have a gun and then use their children to ask the president, or gun-control advocates why it was good for their mommy or daddy not to be armed. Seriously, if the President can trot out victims that would *not* be saved by his executive actions and recommendations, then why can't the NRA trot out victims that would not be denied by his executive actions and recommendations? Give me a break. Emotion is emotion, and the victims are out there, and they're not being used and very well could be. If they ever were, I would be just as offended. It would not be that difficult to find a victim denied a gun because of previous non-violent convictions in their life (like drugs), unable to protect themselves and their children. It would not be that difficult to find victims that fit these news laws and recommendations and use them for commercials. Yes we were, among other matters much worse, and no: what I posted there is quite true of that time. It's still true, actually. You made the claim, now prove it. Prove that "free speech, not properly controlled" was considered the reason why we suffered 9/11 and that uncontrolled speech was dangerous and could cause more 9/11's. Prove that. That's what I challenged, and I still call bullshit. It was *not* even remotely an issue and you know it. Instead, privacy rights were violated to record speech - not control speech - that was previously illegal. We were told it was necessary to "protect America from another terrorist attack". Since Republicans and GWB have never been big proponents of civil rights, the Patriot Act was viewed as suspicious and overreaching by the left - and they were correct, it was, and still is. The supreme court has agreed with them too on certain parts of the Act. The left interpreted this as GWB exploiting a tragedy to advance an agenda, just as the right largely feels about Obama exploiting Sandy Hook to advance an agenda. Again..."both sides do it" is not rare, and very predictable. Almost as predictable as the denials by their followers... As I noted, it was very difficult to get the attention of the faction now loudest in defense of gun rights. It still is, apparently. The situation is not, as claimed, "obvious to everyone". No, I did *not* claim the situation currently is "obvious to everyone". Prove that claim while you're busy proving the previous false one above. I said it *would* be obvious to everyone if GWB had previously made speeches and been recorded as being hostile to "uncontrolled speech" followed later by a tragedy in which it is decided that "uncontrolled speech" caused the tragedy and that executive orders and a task force need to be set up to "do something now" and to "act on uncontrolled speech". It would be obvious to these current gun control clowns that GWB was exploiting a tragedy to advance an agenda on controlled speech. That's how Sandy Hook looks to many of us. Of all the problems and blame that could be assigned, "gun control" was mined out of that mess as the leading cause, the leading legal target to prevent gun violence in the future. We look at that excuse and say "WTF?" Just like democrats and the left would look at speech control as the leading target to prevent more 9/11's as "WTF?". It's actually fairly easy to see the point and concern of "the other side". Even gun control nuts come to their conclusions mostly from honest analysis. It's complicated, and I think we all have the capability of seeing the point the other side presents. We tend to think everyone oversimplifies and reaches to ideology for guidance, when really, most of us see the complexity of a given issue and came to a conclusion that acknowledges imperfection. Most of us did this long ago. When Sandy Hook happened, I audited what I believe. You can view my posts on the matter. I had to rethink things, and I had to be sure I was standing for the right thing. I have done that, and again I rest on my previous conclusions...that gun rights and sovereignty they provide trump the occassional massacre. It is imperfect, I acknowledge that. But it is more perfect than disarming law abiding citizens, or reducing their capacity to defend themselves with silly restrictions with magazine sizes, banning 'assault rifles' while eqivalent rifles still exist but don't "look" like an "assault rifle" (only a politician can pimp such nonsense) and etc. Anyone who thinks these measures do anything is not thinking at all. It is not hard, drop the ideology and use common sense. Magazine size? While murdering unarmed people? Really? It takes one to three seconds to change a clip. Adam Lanza changed clips at least 4 times (Approx 150 bullets fired, 30 rounds per clip)
Moontanman Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Assault rifles are not the problem... Just a little humor...
overtone Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Wrong' date=' 9/11 victims were *not* on display while George Bush signed the Patriot Act. [/quote'] And you are contrasting that with what? Some imaginary future gun control bill signing behaviors of Obama? btw: The Patriot Act specifically was not my reference, but yours. I am not so restricted, in referring to W or anyone else. bbtw: I am not the one restricting the one side of the "both sides" delusion to the NRA, either. Show me the NRA victim dog and pony show you claim happened or is happening. So I really have to go watch five hours of Fox just to find the latest specifically NRA circus act? How about we just point to that deeply and profoundly dishonest TV ad contrasting the armed guards protecting Obama's kids with an imaginary version of the recommended gun control measures. Nothing on the "other side" (deception) is any worse. Obama used victims of Sandy Hook in his dog and pony show. That was my point and I'm not going to let you forget it. No' date=' it was not. Go back and reread your own posting, which you repeated with emphasis in response to my objection. Your point was that one of the two imaginary sides you set up for this discussion is using emotional appeals and staged theatrical propaganda techniques to trump reason here, and the other of your two imaginary sides is not. You emphasized the contrast, the ethical inferiority of the one side, how it disgusts you. I pointed out that this perception, the basis of your disgust and judgment, is delusion, amnesia, and failure to perceive what is in front of your face and has been for many years now. Not only is the world not divided in that manner, but the two sides you imagine do not differ and contrast in that respect. That's how Sandy Hook looks to many of us. Of all the problems and blame that could be assigned, "gun control" was mined out of that mess as the leading cause, the leading legal target to prevent gun violence in the future. We look at that excuse and say "WTF?" Just like democrats and the left would look at speech control as the leading target to prevent more 9/11's as "WTF?". Except that "the left" did not engage in such deluded behavior, either after 9/11 or now. (Neither did the Democrats, but set that aside for the moment). The libertarian left has never put much emphasis on gun control at all, and its first reaction after Sandy Hook included once again bringing up the matter of mental health care and single payer health care, an issue in which the Republicans and the rightwing factions generally have been irrational and emotional obstacles. The authoritarian left, and also many Democrats, did bring up gun control immediately and loudly and with objectionable but easily comprehended appeals to emotion. But even they did not bring it up as the only factor, or the only factor to be addressed by law. Meanwhile you are no help in combating the illegitimate dominance of emotion and what looks like panic, by assigning reason and rationality itself to the irrational and over-emotional appeals of the NRA, and presenting the benighted gun nuts that organization features as the spokesmen of your imaginary "side". But it is more perfect than disarming law abiding citizens, or reducing their capacity to defend themselves with silly restrictions with magazine sizes, banning 'assault rifles' while eqivalent rifles still exist but don't "look" like an "assault rifle" (only a politician can pimp such nonsense) and etc. Anyone who thinks these measures do anything is not thinking at all. And the position of my little corner is that disarming citizens has not been put on the table and reasonable political leverage will keep it off, so no big worry as long as we can stay alert and keep the likes of W out of office (will we get a little help there, next time? ); meanwhile those ineffective measures are also essentially harmless - there's no need to get all worked up over high capacity magazine restrictions and the like, we did fine for two hundred years without that kind of gear and who cares? There might even be some marginal gain in public safety, at essentially no cost in liberty. It's complicated' date=' and I think we all have the capability of seeing the point the other side presents. [/quote'] So you planning on doing that, any time soon?
ParanoiA Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) And you are contrasting that with what? Some imaginary future gun control bill signing behaviors of Obama? btw: The Patriot Act specifically was not my reference, but yours. I am not so restricted, in referring to W or anyone else. bbtw: I am not the one restricting the one side of the "both sides" delusion to the NRA, either. I'm contrasting that with what I started out with, line one, of this exchange...since you don't read, here's a source with video too. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/01/president-announces-executive-actions-for-gun-control.html As I said before, it's chickenshit to use little kids and offensive as hell considering none of his "23 points" do *anything* to stop another Adam Lanza. Show me the NRA ads that you claim do the same thing. Or are you still lost in the conversation? As I've said, both sides do it all the time. However in this case, it is currently one side. The democrat completely-full-of-crap-and-they-know-it side. The hurry-up-and-pass-some-ideological-bullshit-before-the-emotional-wave-runs-out side. So I really have to go watch five hours of Fox just to find the latest specifically NRA circus act? How about we just point to that deeply and profoundly dishonest TV ad contrasting the armed guards protecting Obama's kids with an imaginary version of the recommended gun control measures. Nothing on the "other side" (deception) is any worse. Yes, when you make profoundly false statements, I will expect you to prove it. Take it back, or go watch five hours of Fox news. Do not make false statements if you don't like proving them. And this is something, considering I'm never one to send people searching all over place to verify things they've said. It takes quite a blatantly, obviously false claim to get me to do that. No, it was not. Go back and reread your own posting, which you repeated with emphasis in response to my objection. Your point was that one of the two imaginary sides you set up for this discussion is using emotional appeals and staged theatrical propaganda techniques to trump reason here, and the other of your two imaginary sides is not. You emphasized the contrast, the ethical inferiority of the one side, how it disgusts you. Uh, yes it was. Here's a recap since you didn't read it the first time...although your summary fits nice too. Yes, emotional appeals and staged theatrical propaganda offend the hell out of anyone with any moral or ethical backbone whatsoever. By ParanoiA: And the dog and pony show continues... This is another example of how this is about ideological opportunity, not to "save children". But that doesn't stop the Obama administration from using children from that very school to shield the outcries of his overreach. How freaking offensive. More "for the children" emotional crap that does nothing for the children, rather it provides cover for executive overreach and cowards that don't want to debate honestly. Trot out the victims democrats...just like you always do when you can't win on the issues and everyone knows you're full of sh!t. Yeah, like I said, trotting out victims is a favorite democrats are particularly prone to doing. I see it from all sides of any given cause, and it's predictable and prolific, but especially a favorite of lefties. Sometimes for good reason though I'll have to admit, after all, the emotional pain and suffering of injustice does involve victims that need to be seen. The difference is when they are being used to take the place of rational thought and exploited to defend a wave of emotional law making...like gun control when we have a murder problem. I pointed out that this perception, the basis of your disgust and judgment, is delusion, amnesia, and failure to perceive what is in front of your face and has been for many years now. Not only is the world not divided in that manner, but the two sides you imagine do not differ and contrast in that respect. And I'm asking you to demonstrate your point. I think you're wrong. I do not see the NRA doing these things. Show me how they do these things or stop making the claim. It's simple, really. Except that "the left" did not engage in such deluded behavior, either after 9/11 or now. (Neither did the Democrats, but set that aside for the moment). Yeah, see your lost here, again. I can't keep up with you losing your place in the conversation. That was a hypothetical that is supposed to help you understand those you disagree with. I didn't say the left engaged in that behavior, and certainly not after 9/11, I was using conservatives and GWB. I'm not sure what you even read, now. I shaped a hypothetical scenario that should violate your sensibilities in order to demonstrate how my sensibilities, and others like me, could be interpreted. If you don't want to understand "the other side" then why are you here? What is the point of discourse and discussion if you don't have any intention of comprehending the concerns and objections of those who disagree on a complicated, important issue? I shared why we are suspicious, with logic and reason. If your only goal is combat, then I'll happily bow out. I have no interest in arguing for argument's sake. And the position of my little corner is that disarming citizens has not been put on the table and reasonable political leverage will keep it off, so no big worry as long as we can stay alert and keep the likes of W out of office (will we get a little help there, next time? ); meanwhile those ineffective measures are also essentially harmless - there's no need to get all worked up over high capacity magazine restrictions and the like, we did fine for two hundred years without that kind of gear and who cares? There might even be some marginal gain in public safety, at essentially no cost in liberty. You are reducing the rights to bear arms when you limit magazine sizes, and ban rifles that look "assault-like" and skeery... But I'm not terribly concerned about magazine sizes actually, only offended that they use little kids and post tragedy emotional tidal waves to pass these laws. It makes me suspicious when people use children to shield them, similar to how to we are pushing our bills onto our kids, and their kids and their kids...I think it's chickenshit for each generation not to pay for themselves. And when I argue to stop pushing the debt limit up, to stop spending and borrowing and pushing the debt onto our kids, and start paying our bills, I'm told I am "irrational" and don't care about poor people or healthcare. As if it's rational to think we can just borrow and borrow and print and borrow and print and borrow and make payments that are equivalent to paying 2 dollars a year on a $100,000 home mortgage while whining about how "brutal" it is... So you planning on doing that, any time soon? I have. My issue is with the method the gun controlling administrative left is using to exploit a tragedy. I have several friends that believe strongly in gun control, and I disagree with them but I appreciate that they at least get my position and don't characterize me as a bad person. I think they're nuts, they think I'm nuts. We're both probably right about that part. Edited January 17, 2013 by ParanoiA
john5746 Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) Assault rifles are not the problem... > Well, there are breasts and then there are assault breasts. I was thinking along the lines of how strong the woman is, etc. But then I realize there probably is an accomplice. When you got the stick in the box, even suffocation won't stop that action. Back to the topic, I guess. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/16/what-everybody-needs-to-know-about-our-constitution-and-gun-control/ Edited January 17, 2013 by john5746
waitforufo Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. " -Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403
ParanoiA Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 I don't know what the hell happened up there. It didn't look like that in my edit box.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 I think I fixed it. The new software tends to do that at random. They're not big believers in testing. 1
hypervalent_iodine Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 I'll admit that I haven't kept up with this thread for a number of pages, but I thought I'd join in for a second to share a small amount of research I did last night while trying to respond to something linked by a friend of mine. She linked this article, which was written by the former PM of Australia. Initially I thought it to be rather stupid, as the comparison between Australia and the US in this context is hardly a fair one. Reading the article I realised that it was actually just John Howard talking about how great he was rather than making sweeping statements about what the US should be doing with gun reforms. Regardless, I've seen a lot of arguments here and from friends in Australia that essentially boil down to the claim that our strict gun laws resulted in low rates of violent crime, which I don't think is factually correct. Australia has traditionally never been a violent nation; using homicide rates as a general litmus for this hypothesis, you see that from the 1970's up until the early to mid 2000's (well after gun reforms were introduced in 1996), the homicide rate remained between about 1.6/1.7 - 1.9/2 per 100,000 people (according to wiki data). Furthermore, gun related deaths on the whole had been on a rather steady decline since well before 1996 (see here); the new laws being introduced don't appear to have changed anything that wasn't already happening, though that's obviously speculative, as it's impossible to prove that the preexisting rate of decrease wouldn't have stagnated or deviated in some way. I was curious after reading that what the relationship between the number of guns and gun related deaths was, so I did a bit of digging for numbers and came up with the attached PDF. It's not exactly conclusive and I'm sure anyone here could poke a dozen holes in it, but it's at least a suggestion that the number of guns on a national scale and the rate of gun related homicides are not related. There are also a few papers and books on the subject that state the same thing on smaller scales within the US and the UK. Even taking into account the difference in gun usage in rural and urban areas, you find no correlation between the number of guns and gun related deaths (this book provides a decent summary of research done in the area). To my mind, that's fairly conclusive evidence to support the notion that a ban on guns or limiting the number of guns would be rather ineffective. The glorification of violence and guns may very well be a large part of the problem, which leads me to think that perhaps this is an issue of social control rather than gun control. guns Sheet1.pdf 1
Recommended Posts