Originally Posted by Justin '77

You can do whatever you want. But there's a big difference between taking an action intended to kill people that results in actually killing actual living people and waving words around and projected statistics.

Supposed lives are not even remotely qualitatively comparable to actual lives. What's more, human life being nonfungible, your attempt to do math with it is fundamentally flawed at the outset -- even if you were able to talk about actual, real lives being saved.

but they aren't "supposed lives." that's what you don't get.

if more people get access to preventative care, the overall result will be that more people will live longer than they would have otherwise, and they will also have a better quality of life.

there are reasons why the united states does so poorly in life expectancy. lack of access to basic health care, subsidizing of unhealthy behaviors, environmental degradation, and a culture that encourages violence -- including the use of the death penalty (which i'm sort of surprised that no one has mentioned yet).

you have to look at the bigger picture. sure, targeted drone attacks are troublesome. but, hey, flying airplanes into buildings full of people might be worse, since that is more indiscriminate type of behavior.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

but they aren't "supposed lives." that's what you don't get.

I get it just fine. You confirm it with your next sentence.

if more people get access to preventative care, the overall result will be that more people will live longer than they would have otherwise, and they will also have a better quality of life.

You are figuring, rather than counting. And the reason you do so is because there is nothing to count.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What I already do is extend my circle of compassion beyond a few dozen white folks whose deaths end up in the national news.
Most of us don't do that. At all.
When JFK got shot, Malcolm X said something about "chickens coming home to roost." He was spot on with that one. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

So, your action plan, based on you own response is to whine and chastise. What benefit derives from that? At least voters are doing something real, no matter how insignificant it may be.

EDIT:
I guess being a compasionate shopper is "doing something", though it does nothing to solve the issues you were raising.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I get it just fine. You confirm it with your next sentence.[FONT=Garamond][SIZE=5] You are figuring, rather than counting. And the reason you do so is because there is nothing to count.

you aren't making any sense here. but thanks for playing.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So, your action plan, based on you own response is to whine and chastise. What benefit derives from that? At least voters are doing something real, no matter how insignificant it may be.

EDIT:
I guess being a compasionate shopper is "doing something", though it does nothing to solve the issues you were raising.

the rani can't really be an effective advocate for "compassion" if she expends so much energy making snotty comments like "i thought you were a liberal."

i suspect that there is something else going on here. more like a knee-jerk, contrary response to people who supported obama in the election.

and that isn't "compassion."

Originally Posted by the bouncer

you aren't making any sense here. but thanks for playing.

You aren't paying any attention. But par for the course, I guess.

Originally Posted by The Rani

WTF ... aren't you the one who's always telling us to heed your "predictions" because they are so accurate?

My predictions are not certainties. They are all "would haves." They are patterns that indicate what might happen. The future is not mechanically determined. Humans have freedom. We will make of these patterns what we will. There is a vast difference between best guesses and estimates, and imaginary bullshit. Justin is denying the difference. But there IS no certainty in life; none.

The point is, Romney would have been like Bush. That is a good estimate. The fact is that Obama is winding down the wars. Bouncer's point was correct, and you are wrong; Obama's policies are leading to a lower body count than the Republican president's were, and that a Republican president's would have done. If you evade that point, you are just evading reality.

Democrats are better than Republicans. The fact that both make some serious mistakes, does not disprove that fact. And libertarians and anarchists are seriously wrong, and that's where you make YOUR mistakes.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The gun toters think the government should begin to do its job, get serious and crack down on the boys in the hood, the mentally ill, the sicko's who illegally obtain firearms and all the illegal gun owners and gun dealers in the US vs cracking down on us (legal gun owner and law abiding citizens who own assault rifles), pointing its finger at us and limiting and adding restrictions on our access to firearms.

In order for the government to do this job, everyone who buys a gun must be registered, because everyone has a background, everyone might be a sicko, and everyone can become a sicko or a criminal. And citizen-owned assault weapons are not necessary for any purpose other than an armed rebellion against the government, or for criminal mass shootings and civil wars, and governments are not going to allow armed rebellions against them, or civil wars, or mass shootings.

Theoretically, members of a "well-regulated militia for the security of a free state" could have these weapons. But note the word "state." Such a "militia" is not a group of self-empowered rebels, terrorists or citizens' militias; they are organized, regulated, disciplined and empowered by the state for the defense of the state. National guards fit that bill.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In order for the government to do this job, everyone who buys a gun must be registered, because everyone has a background, everyone might be a sicko, and everyone can become a sicko or a criminal. And citizen-owned assault weapons are not necessary for any purpose other than an armed rebellion against the government, or for criminal mass shootings and civil wars, and governments are not going to allow armed rebellions against them, or civil wars, or mass shootings.

Theoretically, members of a "well-regulated militia for the security of a free state" could have these weapons. But note the word "state." Such a "militia" is not a group of self-empowered rebels, terrorists or citizens' militias; they are organized, regulated, disciplined and empowered by the state for the defense of the state. National guards fit that bill.

Just don't lose track of the difference between the militia and the national guards. The militia is the adult male fit population. Congress specifies their training. The states appoint officers and implement the federal training. The Congress may call up the militia to enforce laws, suppress insurrections or repel invasions, so the members may keep and bear arms appropriate for the above tasks. None of those tasks involve leaving the country, so the militia cannot be used to fight abroad. Once the Congress calls up the militia, the president is commander and chief of the militia for the duration of the federal service.

The national guard was formed by Teddy Roosevelt, an imperialist who wanted to be able to use his reserve formations abroad. Thus, he organized the national guards using the standing armies language in the Constitution, not the sections controlling the militia. The national guards are paid and receive training over and above that of the adult male population.

This isn't to say that the modern national guard isn't entirely adequate to serve our current needs for a reserve military force. I don't think anyone truly wants to go back to giving the entire adult male population full military training. (In old New England, one brought one's musket to church so one could do militia drills after the service. Times have changed.)

Still, it seems plausible to require members of the militia who keep and bear arms to receive training in the use and storage of said arms. Militia members who disregard such duties night properly be disciplined.

The founding fathers weren't as dumb as some people seem to think. They left proper hooks in the Constitution for responsible keeping and bearing of arms. Some of these hooks are long unused, but are still on the books. The NRA is intense about weapons rights, but seem to have forgotten the duties associated with said rights.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

the rani can't really be an effective advocate for "compassion" if she expends so much energy making snotty comments like "i thought you were a liberal."

i suspect that there is something else going on here. more like a knee-jerk, contrary response to people who supported obama in the election.

and that isn't "compassion."

Actually, it's more to do with the history we long-termers have here. There has been blood on the streets, at least figuratively.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In order for the government to do this job, everyone who buys a gun must be registered, because everyone has a background, everyone might be a sicko, and everyone can become a sicko or a criminal. And citizen-owned assault weapons are not necessary for any purpose other than an armed rebellion against the government, or for criminal mass shootings and civil wars, and governments are not going to allow armed rebellions against them, or civil wars, or mass shootings.

Theoretically, members of a "well-regulated militia for the security of a free state" could have these weapons. But note the word "state." Such a "militia" is not a group of self-empowered rebels, terrorists or citizens' militias; they are organized, regulated, disciplined and empowered by the state for the defense of the state. National guards fit that bill.

The bad guys don't legally purchase or register their guns for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The bad guys don't legally purchase or register their guns for obvious reasons.

If we close the loopholes, it will be harder for "bad guys" (who could include you or me or sickos like Lanza) to get them. The harder the better. That's why law enforcement officials support regulation.

Obama unveils gun-control proposals

Video: President Obama formally unveiled new gun-control polices Wednesday, and referenced several of the most violent shootings of the past few years.

By Philip Rucker and William Branigin, Updated: Wednesday, January 16, 11:34 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...ecd_story.html

President Obama on Wednesday formally proposed the most expansive gun-control policies in generations and initiated 23 separate executive actions aimed at curbing what he called “the epidemic of gun violence in this country.”

While no legislation can prevent every tragedy, he said in announcing the proposals, “if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try.”

Obama called on Congress to swiftly pass legislation to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines for civilian use and to require universal background checks for all gun buyers. Obama’s proposals include mental health and school safety measures, as well as a tough new crackdown on gun trafficking.

Obama spoke in a White House ceremony to formally unveil the proposals and to sign executive orders and paperwork initiating immediate administrative actions, including steps to strengthen the existing background-check system, promote research on gun violence and provide training in dealing with “active shooter situations.”

Taken together, the gun-control proposals rank among Obama’s most ambitious legislative projects, along with his fiscal stimulus package, his health-care law and Wall Street regulations — all achieved when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Administration officials said Wednesday that the proposals do not represent specific legislation. But they said that in the coming weeks, the White House would be working with members of a divided Congress to develop bills to implement as much of the package as possible.

Speaking before Obama, Vice President Biden, who headed a presidential task force that recommended Wednesday’s proposals, said “we have a moral obligation” to reduce the chances that tragedies such as last month’s massacre in an elementary school in Connecticut could happen again.

“I have no illusions about what we’re up against,” Biden said. But he added: “The world has changed, and it’s demanding action.”

Initial reaction to the proposals broke down along predictably partisan lines, with Democrats generally expressing support and Republicans adopting a tepid wait-and-see approach, if not voicing outright hostility.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), said House committees of jurisdiction would review the president’s recommendations. “And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that,” he said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said his panel would begin examining gun-control measures in two weeks. “In our hearings, we will ensure an open forum for a constructive discussion about how we can better protect our communities from mass shootings, while respecting the fundamental right to bear arms recognized by the Supreme Court,” he said in a statement. “As President Obama has made clear, no single step can end this kind of violence. But the fact that we cannot do everything that could help should not paralyze us from doing anything that can help.”

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The bad guys don't legally purchase or register their guns for obvious reasons.

You can walk into a gun show and buy whatever you want, or get some guy in need of some cash to do a straw purchase for you. In Virginia, you can buy-out an entire gun store, as long as you pass the background check. Then, you can legally sell the entire lot to whoever you please with no one the wiser. Are you OK with that?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Damn ... a jerk? Takes one to know one?
I guess the "message" might bounce of harder heads like yours (which is fine with me) but this reply seriously made my day:

don't pat yourself on the back too much.

i had the same realization that deb did (many years ago, in fact). but the circumstances didn't include someone being rude to me in a public forum.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, it's more to do with the history we long-termers have here. There has been blood on the streets, at least figuratively.

sorry, i'm not following you. has obama really been that much of a contentious subject on this forum?

seriously, this place is weird.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You can walk into a gun show and buy whatever you want, or get some guy in need of some cash to do a straw purchase for you. In Virginia, you can buy-out an entire gun store, as long as you pass the background check. Then, you can legally sell the entire lot to whoever you please with no one the wiser. Are you OK with that?

Right now, I can walk into any gun store and legally buy and register whatever I want including an assault rifle after passing a background check. Are you OK with that?

Originally Posted by the bouncer

sorry, i'm not following you. has obama really been that much of a contentious subject on this forum?

seriously, this place is weird.

I've read more about Reagan and Bush over the years than Obama.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

sorry, i'm not following you. has obama really been that much of a contentious subject on this forum?

seriously, this place is weird.

Try the FARK.com Politics tab....

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You can walk into a gun show and buy whatever you want, or get some guy in need of some cash to do a straw purchase for you. In Virginia, you can buy-out an entire gun store, as long as you pass the background check. Then, you can legally sell the entire lot to whoever you please with no one the wiser. Are you OK with that?

Actually, you cannot sell to "anyone". It is a felony to sell to a convicted felon or anyone else who may not legally possess a firearm. Straw purchases are also illegal. Of course, like making silly laws against semi automatic weapons, criminals don't obey them anyways and get whatever weapons they want. Only law abiding citizens adhere to the laws.

Originally Posted by Weave

Actually, you cannot sell to "anyone". It is a felony to sell to a convicted felon or anyone else who may not legally possess a firearm. Straw purchases are also illegal. Of course, like making silly laws against semi automatic weapons, criminals don't obey them anyways and get whatever weapons they want. Only law abiding citizens adhere to the laws.

Laws without teeth aren't laws. They're ass-covering. I 've lived in gun-traffic central for 40 years. I know the game. The gun merchants write the gun laws here in Virginia, but it's NY and other points north that get the traffic. Fast and Furious was an amateur play in comparison.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah man, I love to whine and chastise.
The Wonkette asked a series of questions, and I answered them. She didn't take offense, but apparently a ding-a-ling nutcase did. No surprise there.
In the end, it all comes down to this:

If you were joking, no one knew it but you.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If you were joking, no one knew it but you.

no worries, marx & lennon. eventually, the rani will delete all of her posts.

it's only a matter of time.

it will be as if this exchange never happened.

so who's the real "ding-a-ling nutcase" here?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Are you seriously suggestion that every school have metal detectors and armed guards? How do you propose funding such a measure?...

-A lot of schools already manage to do it. If the safety of the children is your sincere concern, ask them. It probably has to do with 2 guards on shift for a school of hundreds of students and dozens of teachers, administrators, etc isn't thta big a jump. But that doesn't give the gun grabbers anything they want, so...

And since when did you worry about funding, Wonkette? Haven't you learned from Playwrite that all the US government has to do is write a check? Expect a lecture soon.

Originally Posted by Galen

There is one other factor that people like Eric the Obtuse is overlooking is that as 3D printing and CNC machine tools get cheaper the barriers to manufacturing firearms by individuals will be eliminated...

-Machine tools have always been the alternative. I have a friend with an FFL who is a part-time gunsmith. I also know that Pakis and Afghanis have been turning out decent AK's since the late 1980s, and Lee-Enfields before that, and Martini-Henry's before that.

FWIW:

Thief pulls knife; Grandmother pulls gun...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...store-robbery/

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Laws without teeth aren't laws. They're ass-covering. I 've lived in gun-traffic central for 40 years. I know the game. The gun merchants write the gun laws here in Virginia, but it's NY and other points north that get the traffic. Fast and Furious was an amateur play in comparison.

Enforce the laws we have. Does anyone denied a gun based on a background check ever get charged...nope. Do those who knowingly sell to felons gets charged...rarely. Sorry but an "assault weapon" ban isn't likely to pass the Senate, and especially the House.