Is it stale NRA rhetoric or common sense? BTW, what's the difference between a hunting clip and a massacre clip? Common sense says, a hunting clip could be easily turned into a massacre clip because the only difference between them is who is using it and for what purpose it's being used.Originally Posted by pbrower2a
Last edited by Classic-X'er; 01-21-2013 at 04:30 PM.
Indeed so; I agree with the above completely. And Galen confirms again why he is on my ignore list, and indeed has no conception of "logic" at all. The goal indeed is the elimination of all firearms, and all arms on Earth for that matter. That is a long-term ideal, but confiscation is not the way. Nor is tearing down the government the way. The way is a ban on those firearms which citizens have NO business having, if they are not in the military, and fair restrictions on who has access to guns; plus an education campaign that may someday convince even gun apologists and defenders like Galen that guns are not the way to achieve goals or to defend against others. As our culture advances and develops, the gun culture will decline and wither away. And thankfully, this is happening. May it accelerate, as its inevitable results accelerate.
And I disagree with so-called libertarians who would take away all social restraint on corporate power, all means of law enforcement, or any national action on behalf of enforcing international law-- and yet oppose any laws that restrict individuals from possessing or using weapons of violence and power over others. (I edited this sentence)
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-21-2013 at 04:59 PM.
Greater than zero, answer is no.
Always
Rule 1
Rule 2
No
I still hesitate to agree to a test like this, because you could quite easily stray from the simple safety questions to ones which are subjective. Do you start proposing scenarios and asking "shoot / no shoot" style questions? There are enough occurrences where twelve people get to hear what exists of all sides and have to decide that, and not all decide the same way. Plus, guaranteeing that it isn't used as a back door way to get the same prohibitions you can't pass into law. (The test is given at 2AM on the second Sunday following a blue moon or some other such nonsense. Yes, I am exaggerating, but in order to accept it, it would need to be offered regularly, and for at most a reasonable fee.) While on a national level, the gun control crowd may not be so much in favor of an outright ban, those kind of extremists could sneak in at the local level, where this stuff is most often implemented.
And I have to disagree, I think, on Eric's point about being denied a firearm. If someone is denied by fraud, then I disagree on harm being done, no matter the outcome. Not sure if that's what was meant though.
edited: restoring quote, since I had originally planned to answer in a different way.
Last edited by Joral; 01-21-2013 at 04:42 PM.
"On the day the storm has just begun I will still hope there are better days to come."
I don't put you on ignore because I'm interested in what liberal fools like you believe and have to say about social deviding point issues like gun control. BTW, people who have thin skin or easily get caught up in their emotions or are prone to emotional breakdowns or act on their emotions or are emotionally weak or unstable like most liberals should not be allowed to own or handle guns.
Last edited by Classic-X'er; 01-21-2013 at 05:03 PM.
Good. Us fools are foolish enough to put out our opinions, even though the likelihood of what we say being understood is next to nil. That is kinda foolish, I admit. But it beats just sitting and stewing I guess.
I heartily agree. An emotionally-unbalanced liberal with a gun is as dangerous as an emotionally-unbalanced conservative with one. And like I said, no harm done if anyone is denied a gun; although any "fraud" is a bad thing in general for social harmony and the general perception that our society is just and fair.BTW, people who have thin skin or easily get caught up in their emotions or are prone to emotional breakdowns or act on their emotions like most liberals should not be allowed to own guns.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-22-2013 at 03:43 PM.
She is a good example of how they think and the strategy they have been using since the seventies. As my professor in my History of Modern Science course pointed out during a lecture on social Darwinism the label Liberal has almost the opposite meaning that it had in the nineteenth century, a nineteenth century Liberal would now be called a Libertarian. You could pretty much say that about almost any particular Senator or Congressman since the Progressive era, regardless of party affiliation or label that the public hangs on them.
You may know several long-time NRA members that have dropped but both NRA and GOA memberships has been increasing. I would be willing to bet that the members you are talking about are Boomers or Silent generation. You had to be around in the seventies to understand how easily the NRA would cave during that time.
Last edited by Galen; 01-21-2013 at 06:09 PM.
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
- Ludwig von Mises
Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
- Lazarus Long
Obviously any gun control law must be designed so that gun ownership or possession is as permissive as possible consistent with public safety. What we dare not do is the trick of the Marihuana Tax Act does: impose a tax that the government never allows one to pay yet for which non-payment is grounds for arrest and imprisonment.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
H-m-m-m. The first clause is a gross exaggeration and the second is speculation backed by no evidence I’ve seen.
Now here, we agree. Eric has a bad habit of creating his own English, though the founding fathers tended to do this as well. Perhaps it’s patriotic.
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.
Being sensitive and being afraid may both be "emotions," at least to a small extent, but they are different responses to the spiral of gun violence. What is needed is sensitivity, and those who show it, inevitably favor more laws to control this particular spiral of violence. The insensitive, oppose these laws. They apparently are not moved by the needless deaths of 20 children; at least not enough to possibly change their minds about gun control, and say "enough!" as Gabby Giffords did. People need to have the courage to let go of their libertarian shibboleths and do the right thing, which IS to support a ban on assault weapons and large magazines and requirements for background checks on all who seek to obtain a gun.Now here, we agree. Eric has a bad habit of creating his own English, though the founding fathers tended to do this as well. Perhaps it’s patriotic.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-22-2013 at 12:17 AM.
Ideally we have less need to stand up to the bad guys and that the bad guys have fewer of the tools of committing massacres.
Crime of any kind is usually a moral failure whether it is a street mugger beating a little old lady for her cash or the operator of a sophisticated embezzlement. What do we do to create more respect for the dignity of others?
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Shakespeare did the same thing, so it might be the English side of Eric that he never knew he had. Although I do the same as there are some spellings I frequently misspell that no matter how I set in stone are spelled a certain way I can't seem to get over spelling a different way when I'm not paying attention.Now here, we agree. Eric has a bad habit of creating his own English, though the founding fathers tended to do this as well. Perhaps it’s patriotic.
Also for a long time as a child I thought the British spellings of "Colour" and such were the correct ones for some odd reason that I can't explain. Maybe I was British in a past life or something...
~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
It's called religion, or spirituality. But we need more and better.
Just another new addiction we have cultivated
CEO's Are Responsible Gun Owners, Too:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...d-for-gun.html
"Slippery slope" well fits addictive behavior. The idea that a female showing a little more flesh will keep doing so until she becomes an uncontrollable whore is a not-so-valid slippery-slope argument.
Slippery slope again. Sport hunters are not to be confused with gang members. An AK-47 is not a deer rifle.Using hunting licenses would be a bad proxy. Some, probably a large number of gun owners, don't hunt. Every time the discussion of a ban comes out, the politicians are quick to claim they don't want to affect hunters. Divide and conquer, a staple of American politics.
The baseball bats become a concern of prosecution should they ever be used in a crime -- as in a beating. A wife who hires thugs to beat her husband fatally so that she can collect proceeds from an insurance policy who denies buying the bats for hired killers but is seen on store records buying them may have lied her way to the execution chamber.As for retail purchases, the explosives one is an interesting case, because it is usually a good preemptive clue that someone is doing something funny if they, as a non-farmer, buy huge amounts of fertilizer. Your baseball bat example seems to contradict your point though. Do we send cops to investigate every purchase of 5 or more bats? Three? The data is useful after the fact to make a case in court against someone, but not so much as a preventative matter.
Slippery slope arguments apply to politicians who have an agenda. Those with an extreme and unpopular agenda often claim that they will stop at a certain point so long as they get the unrestrained power that they demand for meeting some 'emergency'. Prime example: the Nazis did not begin with gas chambers and shooting pits. Such was the end, and not the beginning which was to deny Jews access to the media while bigots like Julius Streicher could libel them at will. Then came destruction of their economic viability and separation of them from fellow Germans. They were stripped of any means of defense; they were punished even for striking back at abusers. Jewish religious practices were banned, Jews were denied access to radio sets, and formal organizations were so regulated that they became comfortable traps. Helpless and unaware they could be ordered about like livestock to the slaughterhouse. I could likewise discuss the Communist appropriations of property. First the Communists would seize the banks (never the most popular institutions of commerce) and do something really popular -- like breaking up the landed estates and allotting parcels of land to farm laborers. Of course the plots would be so small that no farmer could make a living off them, but that would not be obvious at first. Then they would nationalize one industry after another -- big manufacturing companies first, then big department stores, then medium-sized department stores, and finally small shops. They would impose punitive taxes on those who didn't sell out cheaply to the 'socialist sector' By the time that happened the Commies had so engineered the political system that nobody could put up a successful resistance.Eugene Volokh wrote a Harvard Law Review paper on evaluating some of these cases, here. This exact example of registration leading to confiscation was one that he used, and I will quote the two points below which seem to be the most likely, especially including your hunting license claim above.
The slippery slope applies to a totalitarian cause that has destroyed or intends to destroy personal freedom. Does anyone see gun control associated with a totalitarian cause in America?
...You encounter surveillance cameras every day. Drive into a gas station or a parking lot and you will see cameras. Go into a store and you can expect to see a warning such as "To keep our prices low we have surveillance cameras to detect shoplifters". Drive off without paying for gasoline and someone will take note of the license plate on your vehicle. Vandalize cars in a parking lot and store security will supply the videotape of the incident to law enforcement agencies.
I came close to being on a jury panel for an grand theft auto. A woman left keys in her car while she went in to pay for the gasoline and buy some cigarettes -- and someone took the car 170 miles away to Indianapolis. The incident was on tape. The car was obviously not his, and it ended up where it did not belong... the thief plea-bargained when he found that a jury could be empaneled, and from what I hear I would have found him guilty. He would have gotten a twenty-year term as a repeat offender in Michigan.
Criminal behavior has no right to privacy. Does non-criminal behavior between consenting adults have a right to privacy? It most certainly does. I'm not saying that people could fornicate in a public park where such is not intended. There's no consent to a sucker-punch, auto theft, shoplifting, or any deed that is a part of a serious crime. Buying baseball bats for a Little League team or an axe for a Scout activity is ordinary. Buying either and subsequently using them in a murder draws the legitimate scrutiny of law enforcement and prosecution. Businesses cooperate when issued a subpoena. That said, we all watch surveillance, and when it goes too far -- like being positioned to watch people who have a reasonable right to avoid scrutiny, as in a shower -- one has an illegal act or a civil tort.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 01-22-2013 at 12:32 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Breaking: Shoootings at Houston area community college:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...olice-say?lite
Another persecuted gun owner has his guns taken away:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...olice-say?lite
"For one community leader, the move by police to seize Oberender’s firearms came none too soon.
“The neighbors said they made numerous calls to the sheriff’s department that a young man is out shooting a gun in the back yard,” local school superintendent David Marlette told NBC affiliate KARE. “I just think it took too long for someone to come and take his guns away.”
Police state!
Still relevant today
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
Yup. Example from another post in another thread.
Internet celebrity pr0n.
This thing is just the internet's version of those checkout celebrity rags.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
Not saying I am not ever subject to internet addictions.Yup. Example from another post in another thread.
This thing is just the internet's version of those checkout celebrity rags.
But I was just a visitor to popcrush, looking around for more info to answer The Rani's suggestions about Justin B's behavior, and happened to stumble on it. I don't normally visit those kinds of sites. Now, you knew that, so what is the point of hammering me over it, pray tell? Especially when my taste in pop and rock music is so much better than yours.Not that I'm upset; it's true and I agree that these kinds of websites are just more pop culture running amok.
But on the other hand, this site was what informed me that JB is going to host Saturday Night Live on Feb 9. I'm glad to know that, and I will be glued to the TV to see that!
Now Rags, you brought this topic over from "another thread," so the "contamination" this time belongs to you.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-23-2013 at 06:00 PM.
I was aware of this, and I don't disagree, Dr. Rani.
On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.
What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/201...lugin_activity
To all of you people lamenting the latest shooting in America:
May I suggest that you move to Liechtenstein?
With a population of 34,000, the law of averages says that such incidents will be far less frequent there than in a nation of 316 million like the United States.
Think of it as the price of living in a country with a huge population - to say nothing of the price of freedom.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.
Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!
We will be free when we are willing to face up to our problem of violence, and act to correct it. To do that we must join the rest of the developed world and give up our attachment to guns. There is no other way. We need to stop avoiding what we need to do. Telling Americans to love it as it is or leave, is just another way of avoiding the issue.
Senator Unveils Bill to Limit Semiautomatic Arms
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/us...arms.html?_r=0
Senator Dianne Feinstein announced plans at a news conference on Thursday to introduce a bill that would outlaw a large number of different assault weapons.
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: January 24, 2013
WASHINGTON — During a lengthy and at times emotionally wrenching news conference, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California on Thursday announced legislation that would ban the sale and manufacture of 157 types of semiautomatic weapons, as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The bill, which Ms. Feinstein said she would introduce in the Senate on Thursday afternoon, would exempt firearms used for hunting and would grandfather in certain guns and magazines. The goal of the bill, she said, would be “to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”
Surrounded by victims of gun violence, colleagues in the Senate and House and several law enforcement officials, and standing near a peg board with 10 large guns attached, Ms. Feinstein acknowledged the difficulty in pursuing such legislation, even when harnessing the shock and grief over the shooting of 20 schoolchildren in Newtown, Conn., last month. “This is really an uphill road,” Ms. Feinstein said.
Since the expiration of a ban on assault weapons in 2004, there has been a deep reluctance among lawmakers to revisit the issue. They cite both a lack of evidence that the ban was effective and a fear of the powerful gun lobby, which has made significant inroads at both the state and federal level in increasing gun rights over the last decade.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, recently said during an interview in his home state that he was skeptical about the bill. Ms. Feinstein immediately called him to express her displeasure with his remarks.
Many lawmakers, including some Democrats, prefer more modest measures to curb gun violence, like a bill that would enhance background checks of gun buyers or focus on enforcement of existing laws.
One such measure has been introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who will begin hearings next week on gun violence. His bill would give law enforcement officials more tools to investigate so-called straw purchasing of guns, in which an individual buys a firearm for someone who is prohibited from obtaining one on his own. While Mr. Leahy has said he supports a limit on magazines, he has expressed skepticism about a broad assault weapons ban. Many gun control groups have set more modest goals, focusing on gun trafficking and the tracking of mental health records.
More legislation is expected to arise over the next week or two. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and Senator Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois, have agreed to work together on gun trafficking legislation that would seek to crack down on illegal guns. Currently, there is no federal law that defines gun trafficking as a crime.
Ms. Feinstein was joined on Thursday by several other lawmakers, including Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York, who will introduce companion legislation in the House, and Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who emotionally recalled the day when the children and adults were gunned down in Newtown. “I will never forget the sight and the sounds of parents that day,” he said. Several gunshot victims, families of those killed and others gave brief statements of support for the bill.
Ms. Feinstein’s bill — which, unlike the 1994 assault weapons ban, of which she was a chief sponsor, would not expire after being enacted — would also ban certain characteristics of guns that make them more lethal and would require that grandfathered weapons be registered. More than 900 guns would be exempt for hunting and sporting.
Such a measure is vehemently opposed by the National Rifle Association and many Republicans lawmakers, as well as some Democrats. “I don’t think you should have restrictions on clips,” said Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who has said he welcomes a Senate debate on guns. “The Second Amendment wasn’t written so you can go hunting, it was to create a force to balance a tyrannical force here.”
President Obama has called on Congress to act on some gun restrictions; on Thursday afternoon, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was to hold an online “fireside hangout” via Google.
You go, Dianne! Shame on you Sen. Coburn for distorting the meaning of the second amendment so madmen can continue to gun down little children with impunity.
