The only special interests being heard are on the pro-gun side. I'm sure you know that the first response to the shootings from the gun crowd wasn't horror or even shame, it was a mad rush to buy every military weapon in stock. Here's a perfect example. The store is just a few miles from Virginia Tech.Originally Posted by Kepi
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
"We have an obligation to act and prevent tomorrow’s senseless deaths!" NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand says Congress needs a sense of urgency
"Politicians offering sympathy doesn't make up for Congress' inablility to properly address common-sense gun laws, which they have avoided debating for far 'too long."
BY SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
There are no words to express my sadness and outrage over the loss of so many young innocent lives.
Politicians have rushed to offer words of sympathy for the victims, but Americans expect more from us.
And they deserve more from this Congress.
Congress has ducked a serious national debate over common-sense gun laws for too long. While there may be nothing we could have done to have stopped this deranged individual from killing and terrorizing so many people, how many more tragedies must we live through before we say enough is enough?
We have an obligation to act and prevent tomorrow’s senseless deaths by coming together and ensuring that guns stay out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.
Gun violence became very personal to me when my friend, Rep. Gabby Giffords, was nearly killed at the hands of a mentally ill gunman while conducting the same type of “Congress at Your Corner” event I have done dozens of times in my career. Six people that day, including 9-year-old Christina-Taylor Green, had their entire futures taken away from them.
I have seen too many parents’ lives shattered, from Binghamton to Brooklyn.
I will never forget the faces of slain 17-year-old honor student Nyasia Pryear-Yard’s parents, whom I met just weeks after being sworn in to the Senate.
My own two boys are ages 9 and 4, the same ages as many of the children attending Sandy Hook Elementary School when the gunfire rang out.
As a mother, and a lawmaker, I will not allow these tragedies, and the roughly 34 gun violence related deaths that happen every day, to go unanswered. We can no longer sweep the conversation about access to guns under the rug, it is time to demand real solutions.
But in Washington, old and tired political battles have prevented progress. Like far too often in this town, partisans talk past each other, and nothing gets done. The moment someone proposes a solution, it is labeled pro-gun or anti-gun, people run to their respective corners, and nothing is accomplished.
Keeping our children safe from the scourge of gun violence is not a Republican or a Democratic principle; this is an issue for all Americans. There is no political ideology that finds this loss of life acceptable.
The mothers, fathers and reasonable gun owners of America need to take back this conversation.
The truth is that supporting the Second Amendment and reducing gun violence are compatible and consistent. Responsible gun owners vehemently oppose the kind of gun violence afflicting the streets of America. But when gun owners and non-gun owners leap to their opposite corners, we give up our ability to thoughtfully analyze the challenges and forge an honest debate.
As someone who believes in the Constitution and an individual’s right to bear arms, I believe the first place we should look for answers is in the Second Amendment itself, which says, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The words “well-regulated” prove the Founding Fathers themselves understood the need to have reasonable limits.
So we must come together around common-sense solutions. We should be able to agree that no American should have access to the high-capacity ammunition clips made for our military. We should be able to agree on closing the gun-show loophole and banning military-style weapons that have no recreational sports use.
And it is well past time to crack down on illegal gun traffickers and their criminal networks, so that we can stop the flow of illegal guns and reduce the violence that plagues too many communities around New York and across the country.
(EDIT- EM: and in Mexico!)
Every day, illegal guns are flowing into cities around the country. Here in New York City, nearly 90% of the guns used in gun crimes come from out of state, and 90% of these guns are estimated to be illegal. Yet while local law enforcement agencies work overtime to track down these weapons, federal law still restricts their ability to investigate and prosecute those who traffic these firearms.
The absence of any federal law defining gun trafficking in this country is shocking. We have thousands of laws, but effectively none of them are directly focused on preventing someone from Virginia from driving to New York City, parking their car in a parking lot, and selling hundreds of firearms out of the back of their trunk to criminals.
In this next Congress, I hope we can move forward the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act I authored working closely with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Mayor Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, the Brady Campaign and New Yorkers to crack down on illegal gun trafficking and stop the flow of illegal guns into our communities.
This holiday season many of us will gather around the table with our families to give thanks for our blessings. Tragically, some of us will be missing loved ones due to gun violence and illegal guns. Let us honor these families and their loved ones by doing all we can to eliminate illegal guns and prevent the loss of even one more innocent life.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/g...#ixzz2Fcu3yNYT
@ Eric - gun control is a special interest. Just because you agree with them doesn't change that fact.
@ Marx&Lennon - the paranoid gun buy up guys are ridiculous, I agree. However, the amount of media misunderstanding and intentional ignorance expressed in the portrayal (i.e. the focus on the weapons, etc.) serves to create that market. It's particularly bad because it serves to sell fire arms to people who either already have fire arms or people who've never owned them but are afraid they won't be able to get one if they want it, and it leads to an unused, unappreciated and uncared for gun. That doesn't mean that guns are wrong, it means that people are pretty dumb and prone to behaviors that run counter to their own interests when they're concerned about something.
In the last election, all the money from the entire gun control crowd was less than the NRA spent on a single Senate race. Sorry, there is no equivalence here.
This story was written after the fact. The loonies were already well armed by the time the story broke. I hope you aren't arguing that the rest of us shouldn't know that this is oging on.
BTW, I also hope you took the time to look at some of the hardware that woman was selling ... including the bipod-stabiized sniper rifle.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
I'm 100% certain they are illegal in every state. Why mention them?So.. pipe bombs are better?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Newtown’s Moral Authority for Action
Po Murray, a mother of four children in Newtown, Connecticut, the location of the shooting rampage that took the lives of 20 youngsters and six adults, met with about forty of her townspeople in the local public library to take their grieving to a new level of resolve that they call Newtown United.
The PBS NewsHour carried the conversation. “This catastrophe happened in our town,” Murray said, “this is an opportunity for us to do something really good from a very tragic event that happened. This is a watershed for meaningful change. And I think that we could do something big. And I want to be defining our town by that, not by the tragic event that happened.”
Others agreed. James Belden, who runs an environmental nonprofit, said that Newtown, finding itself in “an unfortunate place right now,” has “a little more of a voice than we did on Thursday.” Tom Bittman, a technology consultant, added: “And if nothing else, if we can get a good national discussion going, and keep it going and get to a resolution, then we win.”
From such horrible tragedies emerge the beginnings of a national movement that moves sanctimonious politicians from talking to acting. Newtown has a moral authority to be heard and respected in Washington, D.C. and around the country. It is an authority born of a determination that these children and brave adults shall not have perished in vain. Imagine 12,000 human beings in the U.S. who, in columnist Richard Cohen’s words, annually succumb “to the routine mayhem caused by guns,” not counting thousands of suicides.
Some ideas
In Japan, with a third of the U.S.’s population, eleven people lost their lives to guns in 2008, a tiny fraction of one percent of the casualties of the same kind in the United States. Mayor Michael Bloomberg who has organized hundreds of Mayors in a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns said: “We are the only industrialized country that has this problem. In the whole world, the only one.”
The problems are numerous, some more tractable than others. The greatest consensus starts with requiring stricter criminal background checks on gun sellers and gun buyers. This receives majority support among NRA (National Rifle Association) members. Next in public support would be the renewal and strengthening of the ban on assault weapons and other military hardware, followed by limits on high-capacity magazines and certain kinds of ammunition.
There are, of course, more controversial measures, including two proposed by President Johnson – licensing all gun owners, suitably trained, as we do with those wanting to drive, and registering firearms, as we do with motor vehicles. Also, as noted by Dr. E. Fuller Torrey and Doris A. Fuller inThe Wall Street Journal that there would be fewer mass shootings “if individuals with severe mental illnesses received proper treatment.”
Last edited by Deb C; 12-20-2012 at 05:50 PM.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
Well, all I can say is good luck selling that argument. An 8th grader could poke holes in it. (The strongest argument against it is the obvious fact that the Constitution and the government as a whole are not even remotely the same as they were in 1789. Nice try, but no dice.)
Here, let me make up these arbitrary criteria for what makes a proper amendment--they can't fix perceived flaws in the document, they can't have anything to do with the civil war, and they can't 'favor the powerful'. With my arbitrary criteria in place, there are only five amendments that are relevant here!
Ho hum.
Well, if you ignore 50 years of tooth and nail opposition by the Women's Suffrage Association/League of Women Voters, which began before Schlafly was even born, then...
Oh, wait... You didn't realize that the ERA had been proposed nearly fifty years before Schlafly mounted her famous opposition of it? You didn't realize that the feminists of the era opposed it because it would roll back hard-won protections for women? Oh.
And yeah, sorry. Schlafly's arguments were (in order of their influence) that the ERA would allow women to be drafted (even before Schlafly came along, this was contentious in the House and the Senate), that it would gut alimony and child support for women, and that protections for women in the workplace (such as the ability to refuse work they were physically unsuited for) would be rolled back. Even before Schlafly hit her stride, people were already having second thoughts. She was able to tap into that very effectively, but it wasn't like she came out of nowhere and killed the ERA by saying working women wouldn't be home to tend their children.
Whether you agree or disagree with her, that's just a load of bull.
I didn't point to those laws because they would have been rendered unconstitutional. I pointed to those laws as examples of other ways to approach the same basic issue that the ERA was intended to address.
"All stories are haunted by the ghosts of the stories they might have been." ~*~ Salman Rushdie, Shame
Yes, it's pretty clear, isn't it? At least from the Jungian theory POV.
Even though he was friends with Ward Churchill?
Or are you saying you like that book, but not Rainbow Pie or his internet columns?
I was talking about the MBTI, which I thought you said had scored you as INTP -- was I wrong?
But you're right, there aren't any tests for Jungian/socionics type that I know of. I'm going by my understanding of the theory. And hey, as Odin said, going by *his* understanding of the theory, he came to the same conclusion. (BTW, socionics says that those who are Ti-Ne are likely to score as INTJ on the MBTI. That's why socionics calls it INTj. BTW2 -- that is how I scored on the real MBTI.)
Socionics and MBTI are two very different things. There's no rule that says they have to agree. Here's what socionics says about Ni vs. Ti.
Socionics on what it calls "introverted intuition":
Socionics on what it calls "introverted logic":THEMES and SUB-THEMES
* time, processes, speed
- crises
- sense of time
- a person's influence on time, and time's influence on a person
* interconnections; interdependence of objects, events, and processes
* foresight or anticipation (through a sense of processes)
* the nonmaterial part of the world within us
- internal processes
- adverbs denoting state of mind
* memory
- associations or connotations
* the "music" of the inner world (of a person or any object, figuratively speaking)
* uncertainty
- perceiving imagery
SPEECH PECULIARITIES
* water-related metaphors and expressions
* birth and death imagery; mirror and reflection themes; vocabulary that demonstrates uncertainty that can't be reduced to a rational description
* associations and figures of speech not united by a central concept (as in Ne), but based on free association
* metonymy and synecdoche; metamorphosis; symbolism, catachresis; oxymoron; synesthesia
DOMINANT FIELDS OF ACTIVITY AND TOPICS OF CONVERSATION
* discussing processes;"the history of the issue"; "the philosophy of the situation"
* discussing imagery, associations, and recollections
* foresight or anticipation
* interconnectedness of objects and processes
* the topic of changes
* the topic of style
I hope you can see why it looks to me like the first just fits you far better. Well, your T4T persona anyway. The bolded are just so you, or at least that's how it seems to me.THEMES and SUB-THEMES
* describing thinking processes
- expressing thoughts
- constructions of correspondence that reflect the train of thought (logical connectors)
- introductory phrases
- issues related to reflecting thought processes; clarifying one's position
- evaluating mental capabilities
* objects' structure
- describing spatial relationships and how objects are situated in relation to each other
- social boundaries determined by agreement
- "geometry" in the figurative sense
* comparing and classifying
- constructions of comparison
SPEECH PECULIARITIES
* minimizing vocabulary (significant words) and maximizing grammar — prepositions and introductory statements
* frequent use of complex prepositions
* grammatical form
* correct phrase construction regardless of whether or not the phrase has meaning
* use of "geometrical" language in figurative meanings
DOMINANT FIELDS OF ACTIVITY AND TOPICS OF CONVERSATION
* certain fields of scientific knowledge: geometry, formal logic, scientific classifications and systematizations
* cartography; architecture
* organizing formal structures; defining work duties
* analytical activities of any kind
* interaction with formal structures
But that says nothing about your MBTI results. We're probably just talking about two different things.
That doesn't address the point the practical posters (ie: neither of us) were making.
They made two points related to one another but not to yours or mine (or Bob's):
(1) There's a genuine difference between semi-automatic and automatic;
(2) Semi-automatics are extremely popular and, in their opinions, useful, and are therefore, they argue, effectively impossible to ban.
I know #1 is true. I also know that semi-automatics are indeed extremely popular. As for the rest of #2, I don't have much of an opinion, because that's just not my area of focus.
I do.The problem for you is that I DID develop more empathy during the Awakening, which is why I feel the pain of the families in Newtown and elsewhere. why don't you?
That's why I want would-be shooters to be helped before they do these things. So they can become happy and productive citizens instead of coming to hate society so much they try to "attack it" by killing children.
...creepy though I admit it can sound to want to assimilate everyone into being "happy and productive citizens." :/
Still, I think that's better than them
(a) freaking murdering people or
(b) getting locked up forever, along with, for every actual would-be shooter, a whole bunch of people who *aren't* dangerous, because someone thought they all *might* be and better safe than sorry.
Both are huge wastes of human life and potential.
Check out Deb's political cartoon: http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...34362601_n.jpg
I agree with its point about the state of US society. But in general, I'm for increasing access to the good rather than punishing the bad. For example, I believe it's bad for a country to have a lot of residents who can't vote, so I'm against illegal immigration. I'm not for increasing border patrols or whatever, I'm for creating more pathways to legal immigration. Similarly, I'm not for increasing restrictions on guns (though I don't feel strongly on that), I'm for increasing access to mental health care. And destigmatizing mental illness. And providing positive social roles for "intelligent, unathletic wannabe-joiners," as described in the article I linked in my previous post.
And I'm not even a clinician.
Meanwhile, it was pretty disconcerting to see you dismiss everyone who depends on hunting for food with what amounted to "they don't exist or if they do, they shouldn't." Look, I don't hunt, because I don't enjoy the predatory mindset it requires. I sure don't depend on hunting for food. But I do know there are people who do!
I was referring more to the "ranting about the Bill of Rights while the older 'opponent' rants about his values, and no actual communication takes place" aspect.
Well, like I said, as a Ti-dominant, I naturally have "fundamentalist" -- or "philosophical," or "derive everything from first principles" -- tendencies. Reality has pulled my head at least partway out of my ass; I know this approach doesn't always lead to the most practical decisions, which is why I don't follow it unreservedly. Still, I'm not interested in removing part of the Bill of Rights unless it's replaced with something better.
As for Scalia, he's an un-American creep:
"Strict constructionist" my ass.
Well, first of all, I feel very strongly that we need to *de*stigmatize mental illness. The laws -- never mind an amendment! -- that say that those who have *ever* been diagnosed with a mental illness can *never* have a gun *ever again*, only perpetuate the stigma. And they discourage people who are already members of a gun culture from seeking treatment -- because the treatment now requires they leave their whole culture. Far better to let people get help, be deemed recovered, and be allowed to resume their places in society.
Other than that...
Let me just quote another of Terrierman's Joe Bageant quotes:
Terrierman:With Michael Savage and Ann Coulter openly calling for putting liberals in concentration camps, with the CIA now licensed to secretly detain American citizens indefinitely, and with the current administration effectively legalizing torture, the proper question to ask an NRA member these days may be "What kind of assault rifle do you think I can get for three hundred bucks, and how many rounds of ammo does it take to stop a born-again Homeland Security zombie from putting me in a camp?"
Which would you prefer, 40 million gun-owning Americans on your side or theirs?
Or as you said:The Good Old Boys of Virginia -- Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington -- knew that power belonged to the people only so long as the power of the state could be met with an equal power organized by the populace at large working in tandem.
Guns were not to be used capriciously, but they were part of the long term plan crafted by our Founding Fathers to protect this great nation from powerful, cunning and patient forces of oppression -- whether those forces came from within or without.
So, OK: Nowadays a government can, if it so chooses, oppress its people with chemical weapons, or even biological or nuclear weapons; nowadays, a populace armed with standard military guns, especially with no training, is no longer enough to guarantee there will be no such oppression.
I hate that fact, because on principle, it endangers America.
I am very tempted to hide my head in the sand and pretend that the 2nd Amendment is still enough, is still all we need to keep power in the hands of the people. But I know it's not.
And I have to say I'm a bit baffled by the gun control advocates who use that fact as a reason we should all learn to stop worrying and love the gun control!
In any event, I want to at least keep the 2nd Amendment, ineffectual though it now is for its stated purpose, until we can come up with a better way to keep power with the people. I definitely wouldn't want to see the main point of the 2nd Amendment gutted and replaced with nothing but flipping hunting rights! Not without replacing it with a better way to prevent oppression. (I used to be a vegetarian, what do I care about hunting rights? Except in terms of respecting the rights of fellow citizens who are different from me. I do care about that.)
You have been calling on liberals to understand the Constitution. I am a liberal, but I guess I'm old-fashioned on this issue. I understand the Constitution. What I don't understand is people who just...don't care about the goal of keeping power with the people. *The* founding principle of our nation, and the only argument they make that even touches on it is, "It's already lost and impossible anyway, yippee!"
So, OK. I want to understand the "modern" POV. Can you help me out here?
Bear in mind that I grew up in the city. I've seen guns used for protection, and I've seen attempts to use guns for protection go tragically wrong. I just...know history and see no reason to just sort of up and assume no government would ever oppress its people, just because arming the populace with military weapons would no longer suffice to protect the people from that.
Or hey, maybe it would after all! In which case this:
sounds far better to me than your proposed amendment.
Is anyone involved in this conversation a member of the NRA? Just curious.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
Hi. yes I am
Yes, I am INTP
So since I go by MBTI, you are INTJ then, and I am INTP (although it's true my T/F score is basically tied). Odin is not qualified to evaluate me; he is an unrepentant Eric-hater (there are several; Galen, Semo, Vandal come to mind). I don't go by socionics at all. I could only dream of being a J; I waste so much time here and on other distractions, no one who knows me would even think of calling me a J. I hate schedules and deadlines!But you're right, there aren't any tests for Jungian/socionics type that I know of. I'm going by my understanding of the theory. And hey, as Odin said, going by *his* understanding of the theory, he came to the same conclusion.... INTj. BTW2 -- that is how I scored on the real MBTI.)
Maybe; I have disagreements with both systems, but they are both valuable. A test is more reliable than subjective reactions to posts on a forum by people who disagree with me. And since Jungian types don't have a test, then you only have your impressions from words on a screen. That's not reliable.I hope you can see why it looks to me like the first just fits you far better. Well, your T4T persona anyway. The bolded are just so you, or at least that's how it seems to me.
But that says nothing about your MBTI results. We're probably just talking about two different things.
We don't need to worry about people who do eccentric and unnecessary things like that, when it comes to national policy.Meanwhile, it was pretty disconcerting to see you dismiss everyone who depends on hunting for food with what amounted to "they don't exist or if they do, they shouldn't." Look, I don't hunt, because I don't enjoy the predatory mindset it requires. I sure don't depend on hunting for food. But I do know there are people who do!
Understandable idea, but the 2nd amendment has been out of date almost from the time it was written. And in any case, repeal is not on the agenda, nor do bans on military weapons or controls on other guns conflict with it at all. If it were repealed, that would be great; sooner the better. Nothing is needed to replace it. I'm not holding my breath on that one.I'm not interested in removing part of the Bill of Rights unless it's replaced with something better.
Want power to the people? Keep democracy, not guns. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with power to the people; in fact, it was designed for the opposite purpose (to defend the state). Rebels would be outgunned in any revolution; it's not the way. People power gives power to the people. That's the post Gandhi/MLK/60s way, in this current revolution cycle. If you challenge the authorities with guns, then you become a target like the Black Panthers. Now, if you want to fight a civil war, then you need an entire army. I don't recommend that course either. It's time we learned the ways of peace, not war and violence. But I don't subscribe to the paranoid ideas held among some liberals/radicals and/or libertarians that we can never trust the state's "militias." If we have a military or police coup, that's a different story. But that seems not on the horizon to me. Civilian control is a long tradition in the USA.In any event, I want to at least keep the 2nd Amendment, ineffectual though it now is for its stated purpose, until we can come up with a better way to keep power with the people.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 12-20-2012 at 09:07 PM.
Because they're so easy to manufacture. Do you really think the people who would be spree shooters are suddenly just going to stop? No way. Infact, two prominant spree shootings featured home made explosives that didn't get used because the shooters were preoccupied with shooting instead of bombing.
Just because the anti-gun lobby spends less than the pro-gun lobby doesn't mean it's some how better or more valid, it just means it's got less money.
And yeah, the loonies do that because they are loonies. Obama gets elected, they buy guns, prominant shooting, they buy guns, any mild blip in the political radar, they buy guns. Why? Because they're loonies, and that's their MO. The only reason that they do it though is because an anti gun lobby exists and they know it. The lobby doesn't have to actually do anything, it just has to exist and by virtue of it's exisence, gun sales will increase. This facet 1) isn't dangerous and 2) is yet another sensationalist response to expected sensationalism creating yet more sensationalism.
Bipods, scopes, none of it bothers me because I understand that, simply, no matter the gun, no matter the mechanics or the accessories, they are all dangerous if a person wants them to be, they are all benign if a person wants them to be. Any legislation one way or another that doesn't ban guns outright will effectively do nothing, any legislation that bans guns outright will be an expensive logistical failure.
The thing about Japan or Europe is that they had already given up their guns long before the law passed. If the entire country was like New York structurally, of course it'd make sense to ban guns. But it's not. And that population density matters in terms of what peopl can and can't have access to. Subways are going to be pointless in in most places, and there's enough room to make gun ownership reasonable. Hence why so many people own guns. If this was a product used by less than 10% of the population, there might be hope in banning it, but given it's so widespread, bans and regulation will either create mass chaos or do nothing for a very high price tag.
Speaking of Japan, you couldn't pick a more poor comparison to the US, as the two cultures have very little in common with eachother. Europe would be a more fair comparison, but their spreeshooter rate, when compared ours per capita isn't that different, and they are exponentially higher for every index other than murder, including other nonviolent crimes. While crime has dropped consistantly in the US as guns have become more accepted, Europe has seen crime do nothing but rise. Austrailia? Same Story. Western Industrialized Nations who've banned guns are not significantly better off, and in some arenas are significantly worse off.
Well, that's because no nations with modern constitutions have existed or have lasted as long as the United States. The Europeans had to blow each other up, destroy themselves, slaughter themselves and bring each other down to their knees before it's new governments adopted constitutions and democracy.
I agree, "high minded" blather gets old.
What's going to happen in California when poverty grows, taxation greed rises and progressives to change constitutions to suit their needs and all the buku money and buku business that's left decide to pack up their companies and leave the state.
Last edited by Classic-X'er; 12-20-2012 at 09:31 PM.
Why would you assume they are paranoid?
I hope people do realize how much money a person can make by buying up pre-ban items only to sell them at a later (post-ban) date. You will find that bans always increase the value of these items exponentially.
You mean that 20' AR-15 in the picture? Hate to break the news to you but that isn't a "sniper rifle". The .223/5.56 round is for short to intermediate range shooting. If you want to find a good "sniper rifle" I would recommend you go to your local Cabelas and head over to the gun-counter. They can provide you any number of more suitable calibers for long range shooting (the bi-pods are usually in the accessory section nearby).
Seriously though. Dropping a $600 4x12 on your $800 AR-15 carbine doesn't make it a sniper rifle. Hell, I have a nice Leupold 3x9 on my AR-15 and honestly I have found that the scope outranges the rifle by quite a bit. Of course the term "sniper rifle" is a euphemism designed to trick people into being scared (ZOMG there might be a "sniper" outside of your window RIGHT NOW!). For instance, you won't find any statistics for homicides via "sniper rifle" in the FBI statistics I posted a few pages back. This is mainly because... You know... There is no such thing.
Oh by the way, that reminds me. In another thread a few months back I asked you to pull up statistics on how many homicides had been committed with a .50 BMG rifle. Any luck finding that data?
Last edited by Copperfield; 12-20-2012 at 11:12 PM.
Nope. Why would I be?
Did you have a source for that assertion?It makes the fact totally irrelevant, that's all. Not much I guess.
It stops quite a few. Regulations work.
You should write that on the blackboard 300 times.
Tell you what; find me three unrelated sources which display the differences between regulated and unregulated motor-vehicle statistics in the United States. Also present your findings in writing with an analysis that best presents and explains your specific interpretation of the data and I will consider your statement.
As I stated with my question, I was just curious.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
Because so is shooting (or stabbing) people. And the elements of pipe bombs are not illegal, nor is the knowledge of how to assemble those elements.
I mention them because they are a very clear next-weapon-of-choice, historically, for the premeditated school-massacrer. All our, admittedly scant, evidence strongly hints that lacking guns, pipe bombs will be used. And honestly, I'd have a hard time calling that an unambiguous shift for the better...
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
It never was a guarantee. The only guarantee is in the other direction -- if a people are without the means of forceful resistance, they are guaranteed to lose to oppression. All the means of forceful resistance do is give them a chance.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
I'm really not. I just know enough about America in the period before and after the Revolution to know that the Framers lived in a very different world. For example, they had no problem with privately own merchant vessels armed with privately owned cannons and privately owned swivel guns. During the Revolution, they punished dissent mercilessly and banned theatrical performances without a second thought. On top of that, people tend to imagine agreement between the Framers even where there was heated disagreement.You are clearly more sensible than me.
In any case, my point was that it doesn't really matter what the Framers might have thought. If there's a call for an amendment, an amendment can and will happen. The problem for those who argue for far stricter gun control is that there hasn't been a call for an amendment, and it doesn't look like such a call is on the horizon.
I'm going to put Newman's book on my reading list, but what jumps out at me from the article is that she leans heavily on the example of Michael Carneal, but neglects to mention that he was dealing with an early onset of schizophrenia and suffered from auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions. Given that, the idea that he was responding to the rejection he faced because he was unattractive and unmanly seems to be a little cockeyed. The model that she offers of the failed joiner is more or less accurate in some cases (i.e. Carneal) but not so much in others (i.e. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold). But, to be completely fair to her thesis, I'd have to read her book.
However, whether or not I agree with her, it just seems to be a really horrible idea to give instant full-spectrum notoriety to anyone willing to kill a bunch of innocent people.
"All stories are haunted by the ghosts of the stories they might have been." ~*~ Salman Rushdie, Shame
I assume they are paranoid because there's no way anyone can effectively ban semi-automatic weapons, it's so logistically impossible, the ban would be repealed in a week.Why would you assume they are paranoid?
I hope people do realize how much money a person can make by buying up pre-ban items only to sell them at a later (post-ban) date. You will find that bans always increase the value of these items exponentially.
Nope...I haven't been a member for atleast 20 years.
The knowledge that no one can truly "ban" anything tends to be instinctive among people. That's a good thing for the record.
Last edited by Copperfield; 12-21-2012 at 01:38 AM.
Well here's one, specifically on topic of driving, but you have to correlate two articles:
http://www.drinkinganddriving.org/Ar...historyof.html
So drunk driving laws were passed mainly in the 1980s.In 1939, Indiana became the first state to enact a BAC law. The Blood Alcohol Content level to determine a drunk driver was set at a .15 or nearly twice today’s .08 national legal limit.
1969 was the year that popular alcoholic Teddy Kennedy (1932-2009) drove his car off of Dike Bridge which spans between Chappaquiddick Island and Martha’s Vineyard. Kennedy managed to swim to safety, while his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne died trapped in his car under the water. Kennedy suspiciously waited a few hours before alerting authorities. I personally believe he was waiting to sober up a bit before confronting police. While ‘The Chappaquiddick Incident’ may have kept him out of the Whitehouse, it did not end his political career and the topic now has all but faded away.
The 80s were a busy decade in the world of drunk driving. MADD was established and came into prominence in the 1980’s. Court ordered ignition interlock devices began appearing in the late 1980s. In 1984 the national minimum legal drinking age was set to 21.
This set stage for Zero Tolerance legislation passed in 1998. The argument was that if it was illegal for you to drink, than any amount of drinking mixed with driving equaled a worse offense than the usual drunk driving.
March 24, 1989 was the date of the Exxon Valdez oil spill considered to be the worst environmental disaster ever caused by a single person. Long-time alcoholic and Ship’s Master, Joseph Hazelwood drunkenly ran the ship into Bligh Reef and released around 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound. Clearly booze mixes with boats the same way it mixes with cars, disastrously.
Beginning in the early 1990s, states began individually adopting .08 as the legal limit for BAC. It took until July of 2004 for the entire United States to adopt .08 as the national standard.
http://www.prevent.org/data/files/tr...pter%203-1.pdf
In the 1980s and 90s, after the laws were passed, DUI fatalities decreased substantially.There has been a steady decline in the number of drivers found to be over the legal limit of 0.08
BAC (blood alcohol content) in periodic national roadside surveys. In 1973, the figure was 7.8 percent; in 2007, it was
2.2 percent. (The surveys provide a relative measure, rather than an absolute measure, because
they are carried out at specific times. Typically, DUI rates fluctuate depending on the time of day
and day of the week.)
Impact on Crash Risk
The risk of a fatal vehicle crash increases along with the driver’s BAC among all groups.
Cognitive impairment sufficient to erode driving skills to dangerous levels begins at 0.02
BAC, continuing to rise steeply as BAC exceeds 0.08, and becoming extremely high at a BAC
greater than 0.15.
Impact on Fatality
DUI crash fatalities decreased from 53 percent of all fatalities in 1982 to 34 percent in 1997.
However, since the mid-1990s, the percentage of fatalities attributed to DUI has leveled off, and
in 2009 DUI contributed to 32 percent of all traffic fatalities, for a total of 10,839.
Here's another regulation that worked:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1597746.html
More later, I guess.
"Bans don't work" only in the minds of libertarians and anarchists.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 12-21-2012 at 02:01 AM.
