Originally Posted by Chas'88

Speaking of other nations entering Awakenings: On NPR there was an interview with some Iranian television folks who sound so much like young adult Adaptives that it was ridiculous. Iran should be Awakening within the next few years if not already. They described that their generation was a generation that grew up during the war and is angry with the Islamic Republic for what they've done to the nation since then. However these guys have dealt with by creating a program much like the Daily Show, making fun of all parties--even American influence, which has garnered them respect in Iran.

Who was it that said that Adaptives were the best comedians, because their humor was so good-natured and treated everyone equally or something like that?

Anyway, Iran looks well poised for an Awakening. So does Brazil, which has now completely turned around its Inflation Crisis by creating a new currency.

~Chas'88

Interesting and worth watching.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

What 'gun hunt'?

Many think Al Gore lost to GW Bush because he pushed gun control. There were a few states he just barely lost where his pro gun control stance likely lost it for him. Since that time the Democratic national party has not pushed gun control at the national level. The Republicans still use scare tactics. They say the Democrats are pro gun control and try to cause as much fear and anger as possible, but there are no active gun control pushes, and certainly no plans for a gun hunt. After years of gun control in the cities resulting in a culture of guns in the cities, I for one would like to see alternate policies pursued for a while.

The gun rights people are, so far as I know, on the offensive. The Second Amendment has been recognized as an individual right. Strict gun bans such as those in Washington DC and Chicago are being rolled back. Thus far, the increased ownership of guns by the law abiding has not resulted in the end of civilization as we know it. Meanwhile, last I knew, concealed carry laws were spreading in the more rural western states. Again, no end of civilization as we know it.

Anne, there is a lot of emotion involved in this issue. I concur that an attempt by the cities to disarm the country would be problematic. However, it is not on the horizon at this time. This is one of the culture war issues that has been pretty much settled for our time, but some people won't let go. They keep agitating, building up hatred and fear, to no purpose and great harm.

There is no more going to be a gun hunt in the time frame of this crisis than there will be an invasion of the US mainland by the Chinese. I have my disagreements with the Conservatives on many issues, but much of the time they are concerned about realistic problems. It's when they travel into tin foil hat territory that I wonder.

Let me clarify. *If* the left decide to use Tucson as an excuse to begin a "gun hunt" that will spark off what I describe.

And I suspect that is what all the rhetoric is building up as. It may seem an extreme and unlikely move but then again so was many of the 9/11 moves by the right as well before they actually happened. 4Ts are extreme times and many moves are made which may seem impossible in 3Ts. And don't forget many of the most extreme moves made by the right were also cloaked in the mask of "reform" and "public safety". My belief that we are building up to a "gun hunt" is because the left now may be paralleling the right after 9/11. And don't forget immediately after 9/11 much of the rhetoric of the right was about unity and healing too. Before they launched into the extremist part.

Key parts is:

1) This is an issue they have long been passionate about and I can't believe they will let this opportunity past. The moves post-9/11 were things many of the right had been itching to get through for ages.
2) They have a fear of the extreme right just as strong as the fear amongst the right of potential Muslim terrorists.
3) They have as negative an opinion of right wing culture as the right had about Muslim culture.
4) They don't respect this as a civil liberties issue or at least it is a civil liberties the left has long thought needed to be given up for the sake of public safety.

And no I am not a right wing extremist. In fact as I have said before I tend more to the left. And I do not in fact like guns or hunting. Have never held one before in my life actually. And ironically enough I am actually pro gun control.

Hence my point that how many children die or how savage hunting is doesn't matter in a 4T gun debate. I actually *agree* with those who advocate gun control as a matter of crime prevention and I dislike hunting intensely. However in a 4T none of things matter anymore. It now takes on a deeper context as things come to an extreme.

Originally Posted by Odin

I would not call it a Left-Right thing, but an Urban-Rural thing, as my exchanges with Eric have made quite clear, since we are both left-wingers.

Hence my point that if a "gun hunt" happens then rural Democrats may end up joining up with the protesters.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Personally, I would like to see a ban on all guns, and a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Noone here has convinced me that there is a good reason for anyone to have guns, though I welcome the attempts. It seems that the states that have lax guns laws, which are mostly rural, have higher rates of gun deaths. So rifles used for hunting also make murder quite easier, according to the stats.

This is like saying that countries with more cars have more car accidents, does that mean we should ban cars?

Having a super-safe society would also be also be a very unfree society dominated by an authoritarian nanny state, run by people like yourself that think they know what is best for everyone, people's opinions on the matter be damned.

Originally Posted by AnneZob

Originally Posted by Odin

I would not call it a Left-Right thing, but an Urban-Rural thing, as my exchanges with Eric have made quite clear, since we are both left-wingers.

Hence my point that if a "gun hunt" happens then rural Democrats may end up joining up with the protesters.

The gun control issue is definitely rural/urban, and rural America is already imposing its views on the urban centers. Why does no one see that as a problem? Gangbangers, or their agents, buy guns in quantity in easy-buy states, then sell them to people with no legal right to have them and where they have no valid purpose. This is an issue for every major city. All the big cities want it some reasonable control on trafficking, but that's an affront to gun rights. Sorry, I'm not buying it. Why is registration such a huge imposition? Why can't there be a reasonable limit on the number of guns someone can buy, at least in a short period of time? What about a license for owner, similar to a driver's license?

The shoe pinches both feet. Right now the urban foot is getting pinched the hardest.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The gun control issue is definitely rural/urban, and rural America is already imposing its views on the urban centers. Why does no one see that as a problem? Gangbangers, or their agents, buy guns in quantity in easy-buy states, then sell them to people with no legal right to have them and where they have no valid purpose. This is an issue for every major city. All the big cities want it some reasonable control on trafficking, but that's an affront to gun rights. Sorry, I'm not buying it. Why is registration such a huge imposition? Why can't there be a reasonable limit on the number of guns someone can buy, at least in a short period of time? What about a license for owner, similar to a driver's license?

The shoe pinches both feet. Right now the urban foot is getting pinched the hardest.

It isn’t. And in a 3T this sort of arguments would work.

However, this is not a 3T. We are in a turbo-charged atmosphere where infernos can be set off easily, such as the consequences I mentioned. And those consequences are much more frightening than any increase in gun deaths.

The thing is people will say I am being alarmist. However I would like to say that I correctly predicted Obama’s uselessness at an early point. I also correctly predicted that the Democrats would lose heavily at the mid-terms when most people here were saying that after the GOP’s crushing losses and Bush they would be unelectable. I talked about how this would be because they had been focusing on healthcare and not on jobs and because they were not being tough on Wall St far before it became popular on the mainstream. OK it was before my time here but I knew that when subprime hit it would not be contained. The point being that I do have some sort of track record of being right at least some of the time. So I am not a complete wacko.

The thing is why I am so sure the left will over-reach is because it is natural human instinct to over-reach at a point like this, especially given their animosity with the right. If you hate someone, you’ve just been soundly beaten and humilated and you are given the opportunity to act, especially on an issue which your followers are highly passionate about, it takes a very wise and far sighted leader to see the consequences and *not* over-reach. This was the same problem with the right too post 9/11. And unfortunately there are no wise and far-sighted leaders in sight on either side of the political divide.

In normal situations even that would not be a problem, over-reaching would just result in someone losing the next election and life would go on. However the way disasters occur is when the environment is ready for it. Forests which are bone dry and have lots of tinder on the ground will only take a small flame to make the entire forest go up in an inferno.

Some people will say that Obama has been so accommodating so far that it would against character. However the fact that he has been so heavily criticized for this by the left means that he would be even more likely to crack down heavily on this, to prove his stripes to the left, especially since no-one believes it will be a big issue or result in any major consequences and judging by the left wing media many on the left believe that a gun crackdown would be welcomed by the public. That’s how quagmire and disasters start too.

Wars and disasters are often started accidentally. You rarely have someone *deliberately* trying to start one. I’ll just make a stand to prove a point. My popularity will go up and then we'll move onto the next big issue. Oh crap. Oh great, now I can’t retreat because I’ll look weak. The Japanese had done dozens of “sword hunts” in their history. Oh it’s just another sword hunt. It’ll be over in a few months. Oh crap, why is the head of our army raising a private army to try to defeat the government and why is Satsuma trying to secede?

Originally Posted by AnneZob

It isn’t. And in a 3T this sort of arguments would work.



Wars and disasters are often started accidentally. You rarely have someone *deliberately* trying to start one. I’ll just make a stand to prove a point. My popularity will go up and then we'll move onto the next big issue. Oh crap. Oh great, now I can’t retreat because I’ll look weak. The Japanese had done dozens of “sword hunts” in their history. Oh it’s just another sword hunt. It’ll be over in a few months. Oh crap, why is the head of our army raising a private army to try to defeat the government and why is Satsuma trying to secede?

I have to disagree there. Yes, the actual event that triggers a war can look like an accident, but it is usually just a symbol or a result of something much deeper. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is a perfect example: it was actually Serbian state terrorism, part of a long-term threat to the Dual Monarchy that the Prophets in charge wanted to crush.

I think our real question is this: is a non-violent civil war better than a violent one, even if the wrong side wins? I'm inclined to say yes, actually.

As more information comes out, it becomes more clear that to the extent Loughner had political motivations, they were in fact left wing. There is a video of him walking around the campus of his community college talking about "illegal wars", "low pay" and "genocide".

As the saying goes, sometimes attributed to Mark Twain, sometimes Winston Churchill: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

The left thought they could slip this one by and use it to silence dissent, but just like all of their other schemes, it's going to turn around and bite them.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

As more information comes out, it becomes more clear that to the extent Loughner had political motivations, they were in fact left wing. There is a video of him walking around the campus of his community college talking about "illegal wars", "low pay" and "genocide".

As the saying goes, sometimes attributed to Mark Twain, sometimes Winston Churchill: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

The left thought they could slip this one by and use it to silence dissent, but just like all of their other schemes, it's going to turn around and bite them.

This is complete utter nonsense. Did you get this drivel from Limbaugh? There are plenty of Ron Paul supporters spouting the same stuff, doesn't make them left-wing.

Then again, you think the Nazis were Leftists.

A couple of observations for today. This is Martin Luther King Day. It's only right to remind you'all that his life was taken by a guy with a rifle. The same is true of John F Kennedy. If firearms had been restricted, they might have been with us a lot longer. How much better our world would have been then.

Gun violence is tolerated and even sometimes and in some ways encouraged in America. Sex varies from being a taboo and very restricted, to being glamourized and hip. But guys, you know....
you already have a gun. If it's healthy, and you use it occasionally, maybe you don't need a substitute.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

As more information comes out, it becomes more clear that to the extent Loughner had political motivations, they were in fact left wing. There is a video of him walking around the campus of his community college talking about "illegal wars", "low pay" and "genocide".

As the saying goes, sometimes attributed to Mark Twain, sometimes Winston Churchill: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

The left thought they could slip this one by and use it to silence dissent, but just like all of their other schemes, it's going to turn around and bite them.

It doesn't matter which side of the spectrum he is on. Whatever reasons he had were lunatic, and what he did about them was even more lunatic. The reason this happened is still because of your policies; the policies of the people you support. That is why we have inadequate gun control, a mental health system that sometimes fails, and a violent and warmongering culture.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A couple of observations for today. This is Martin Luther King Day. It's only right to remind you'all that his life was taken by a guy with a rifle. The same is true of John F Kennedy. If firearms had been restricted, they might have been with us a lot longer. How much better our world would have been then.

Gun violence is tolerated and even sometimes and in some ways encouraged in America. Sex varies from being a taboo and very restricted, to being glamourized and hip. But guys, you know....
you already have a gun. If it's healthy, and you use it occasionally, maybe you don't need a substitute.

the assasins would have just gotten the gun off the black market. Don't fool yourself otherwise. Banning drugs doesn't stop drug use, banning guns won't stop people from having guns, in fact if you ban guns only the bad guys will have guns (and most cops are more bad than good).

Originally Posted by AnneZob

It isn’t. And in a 3T this sort of arguments would work.

However, this is not a 3T. We are in a turbo-charged atmosphere where infernos can be set off easily, such as the consequences I mentioned. And those consequences are much more frightening than any increase in gun deaths.

The thing is people will say I am being alarmist. However I would like to say that I correctly predicted Obama’s uselessness at an early point. I also correctly predicted that the Democrats would lose heavily at the mid-terms when most people here were saying that after the GOP’s crushing losses and Bush they would be unelectable. I talked about how this would be because they had been focusing on healthcare and not on jobs and because they were not being tough on Wall St far before it became popular on the mainstream. OK it was before my time here but I knew that when subprime hit it would not be contained. The point being that I do have some sort of track record of being right at least some of the time. So I am not a complete wacko.

My track record is better than yours; perhaps better than anyone's. I knew all these things too. This current incident is not going to set off a gun war. It may be an issue down the line if there is an American civil war, which is possible.

Originally Posted by Odin

the assasins would have just gotten the gun off the black market. Don't fool yourself otherwise. Banning drugs doesn't stop drug use, banning guns won't stop people from having guns, in fact if you ban guns only the bad guys will have guns (and most cops are more bad than good).

Ah, the infamous 1968 bumper sticker. What a load of rubbish. The only way we get guns off the streets is to make them illegal or hard to get. If the rural states would get tougher, then the urban states would have even fewer guns coming in. Gun deaths have become lower in eastern populous states, even NY, because of gun laws. Even CA is doing pretty good. If you don't support a ban, at least support sensible laws. The worst states for gun deaths are rural and southern states. Gun control works everywhere in the world. Give up your gun fetish so some folks can live, please.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm not sure what's happening in Tunisia or Iran today is an Awakening. If the issues are mainly secular, a revolution can also be a 4T.

Have you ever seen the movie Persepolis? It clearly tells the story of an Iranian girl who'd be an early Artist cohort and her experiences as a child during the Iranian Revolution in the 1970s, the war with Iraq in the 1980s, and the early part of the Recovery in the 1990s as a young woman. Her family is clearly portrayed as such:

Marjane: Artist
Parents: Nomad/Civic Cuspers
Grandmother: Idealist

Here's my general timeline:

1970s - Crisis (Overthrow of the Shah)
1980s - Crisis (War with Iraq)
1990s - Recovery
2000s - Recovery
2010s - Awakening

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I have to disagree there. Yes, the actual event that triggers a war can look like an accident, but it is usually just a symbol or a result of something much deeper. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is a perfect example: it was actually Serbian state terrorism, part of a long-term threat to the Dual Monarchy that the Prophets in charge wanted to crush.

I think our real question is this: is a non-violent civil war better than a violent one, even if the wrong side wins? I'm inclined to say yes, actually.

I agree. Why don't we just agree to smaller countries, and let people go their separate ways? Why fight to save a union that is now too big, and in which one side keeps the other side from progressing? It is harder to agree with separation given the situation in 1860. Today I think it makes more sense.

Originally Posted by AnneZob

1) This is an issue they have long been passionate about and I can't believe they will let this opportunity past. The moves post-9/11 were things many of the right had been itching to get through for ages.
2) They have a fear of the extreme right just as strong as the fear amongst the right of potential Muslim terrorists.
3) They have as negative an opinion of right wing culture as the right had about Muslim culture.
4) They don't respect this as a civil liberties issue or at least it is a civil liberties the left has long thought needed to be given up for the sake of public safety.

And no I am not a right wing extremist. In fact as I have said before I tend more to the left. And I do not in fact like guns or hunting. Have never held one before in my life actually. And ironically enough I am actually pro gun control.

Hence my point that how many children die or how savage hunting is doesn't matter in a 4T gun debate. I actually *agree* with those who advocate gun control as a matter of crime prevention and I dislike hunting intensely. However in a 4T none of things matter anymore. It now takes on a deeper context as things come to an extreme.

Good. We need you on our side, not the right-wing.

It is true this is a 4T, but so far I don't see any more passion for gun control than what has happened after the many other incidents, such as VA Tech and Columbine. People don't learn lessons easily in America, it seems. There can't be a gun hunt until guns are illegal or much more restricted than today. That will be a long process and in fact will require a new Supreme Court. Given American culture, it may be at least decades before this happens, long after this 4T is resolved one way or another.

Went target shooting today with my friend the IRS agent (federal holiday!).

For someone whose eyesight and dexterity have declined greatly since my last formal weapons quals in 1986, I did OK. My new Browning .22LR target pistol has a fine grip and balance, and the sights seem to be fairly accurate. This was it's first test firing, and the weapon had been stripped and cleaned prior to first use. Bull's Eye won't let you fire at ranges over 21 FT/7 YDS/6 M unless your first ten shots out of ten hit the red zone. I got eight.

Out of about 140 rounds, only 4 went in the 8 ring (because I was doing rapid fire, one handed, for two mags), and the rest went into the 9 area or the red zone. All rounds struck the target. Not bad, after a 25 year break (plinking, off the range, not counting). Especially with an unfamiliar weapon.

Der Kleeb simply vaporized his red zone, at the same range with his Ruger .22 with the custom grips. Very nice pistol. Pay your taxes.

Guy on my left was firing .45 ACP. One of his spent brass casings actually landed inside my trigger guard (vertically,flat!) while I had it safed and empty on it's side waiting for my friend to finish his magazine. Another casing dropped into my shirt pocket. What are the odds on that?

Our results were better than his, at the same range to target.

Lots more practice is required. The .22LR is strictly for target shooting. The weapon is stored in a secure place, no magazine or rounds, and ammo is stored separately. It's a fairly companionable sport, so lots more time at the range is in the future.

Oh, yes, my background check went through in 2 minutes (ID is required to shoot or buy). Apparently I'm still OK, and my TS, etc is still good.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Ah, the infamous 1968 bumper sticker. What a load of rubbish. The only way we get guns off the streets is to make them illegal or hard to get. If the rural states would get tougher, then the urban states would have even fewer guns coming in. Gun deaths have become lower in eastern populous states, even NY, because of gun laws. Even CA is doing pretty good. If you don't support a ban, at least support sensible laws. The worst states for gun deaths are rural and southern states. Gun control works everywhere in the world. Give up your gun fetish so some folks can live, please.

Yes, and we'll just keep arresting pot smokers! That will stop people using drugs!

What did Einstein say about insanity? Keeping doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The Nanny Statists tried it with alcohol, didn't work. They tried it with mind-altering drugs, has not worked. When are the Nanny Statists gonna figure out that trying to ban everything they disprove of doesn't work?

Originally Posted by Odin

Yes, and we'll just keep arresting pot smokers! That will stop people using drugs!

What did Einstein say about insanity? Keeping doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The Nanny Statists tried it with alcohol, didn't work. They tried it with mind-altering drugs, has not worked. When are the Nanny Statists gonna figure out that trying to ban everything they disprove of doesn't work?

Lots of good laws work. It's been tried with guns all over the world, and works. It has never been tried in the USA. It's about time. But then, the USA is slow on everything these days. I still think America can do better. don't you Odin?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Lots of good laws work. It's been tried with guns all over the world, and works. It has never been tried in the USA. It's about time. But then, the USA is slow on everything these days. I still think America can do better. don't you Odin?

Eric, you might try reading this article I found on Yahoo: http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...an.html?cat=17

In particular read the articles at the end. When Australia and Great Britain banned guns violent crime of all types increased. There is no correlation with gun control and lower crime rates and there never has been. Odin is right about this but your phobia will not let you see it.

The Boomers strike again with yet another solution that will fail like all of the others.

Originally Posted by Galen

Eric, you might try reading this article I found on Yahoo: http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...an.html?cat=17

In particular read the articles at the end. When Australia and Great Britain banned guns violent crime of all types increased. There is no correlation with gun control and lower crime rates and there never has been. Odin is right about this but your phobia will not let you see it.

The Boomers strike again with yet another solution that will fail like all of the others.

Thanks for that article.

IMO violence has nothing to do with guns, it has to do with poverty and culture. We Upper-Midwesterners like our guns, but we are not a violent culture.

Originally Posted by Galen

Eric, you might try reading this article I found on Yahoo: http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...an.html?cat=17

In particular read the articles at the end. When Australia and Great Britain banned guns violent crime of all types increased. There is no correlation with gun control and lower crime rates and there never has been. Odin is right about this but your phobia will not let you see it.

The Boomers strike again with yet another solution that will fail like all of the others.

Not all Boomers. I think Eric's heart is in the right place...he simply cannot see beyond his obsession...which seems ideological, not phobic. Problem is if guns are all banned only crooks and cops will have 'em...and the cops can't be everywhere, everywhen.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I have to disagree there. Yes, the actual event that triggers a war can look like an accident, but it is usually just a symbol or a result of something much deeper. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is a perfect example: it was actually Serbian state terrorism, part of a long-term threat to the Dual Monarchy that the Prophets in charge wanted to crush.

I think our real question is this: is a non-violent civil war better than a violent one, even if the wrong side wins? I'm inclined to say yes, actually.

The implication of a philosophy that shuns violence at all costs is "might makes right". It's a bit of the dichotomy we're seeing between the strident right and conciliatory left. Yes, threats of violence can lead to real violence, but failing to stand firm against those threats merely guarantees that, having proven their worth, threats will be used all the time. Eventually, they have to be addressed or the situation deteriorates into an end state no one wants.

Originally Posted by Odin

the assassins would have just gotten the gun off the black market. Don't fool yourself otherwise. Banning drugs doesn't stop drug use, banning guns won't stop people from having guns, in fact if you ban guns only the bad guys will have guns (and most cops are more bad than good).

Come on Odin, think about this. Why do you think there is a Black Market in guns? 99% of all weapons trafficked on the Black Market originated with a legal sale. If we registered and titled guns, then selling them comes with legal requirements, like transfer of title. Now, no one knows beyond the initial sale who owns a specific gun or where they keep it. In some states, and Virginia is one, you can go to a Gun Show, buy whatever you like and leave with gun in hand. There are no background checks or traceable records.

NYC has followed this for years. The WaPo did a series on it. Mexico is up in arms about it (literally). We have a wide-open gun market and folks in the rural areas insist on keeping it that way. Of course, the violence can be home grown too, but the big cities suffer the most ... and have no recourse.

Why does this make sense?