Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'd like to see how they'd do now against the government and military of today. How, do you suppose?

In any case, your rebellion had better at least have a make-shift organization. Do you suppose people like you (and Copperfield and The Rani and Kepi and '58 Flat and so on) support citizens having military weapons in order to fight an organized rebellion against the government? Will the government itself support these rights so that an organized rebellion can be mounted against it? Does it already?

I know some Republicans like Sen. Coburn do.

By the way, I think you guys will do better if you can learn to copy Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Iraqi Sunnis and make roadside bombs and such. I just don't think AR-15s are gonna be enough. I'm sure you'll oppose roadside-bomb control as a violation of the second amendment.


Except that he lost all his battles without them, iirc.

I don't think the US military or the government would remain united in a liberal cause that involves either discarding, removing particular portions relating to certain rights or drastically changing the wording of US Constitution to centralize its power and serve its own interests/puposes for very long. I don't view the AR-15 as a military weapon and I don't consider those who legally own them to be a threat to me or you or children in a school or the government. Unlike you, I've been around enough to understand that there is a major difference between a legal gunowner who has an AR-15 and shoots it for sport or shoots it for fun and a young psycho who murders his mother, steals her gun and enters a school and uses it to shoot unarmed teachers and little children for fun and be the so-called man for the day. Obviously, your issue is with guns in general and the liberal issue appears to be with guns in general. My issue is with people who shouldn't have guns who are the primary threats to society and do the bulk of the unlawful shooting and murdering. I don't expect libs to whole heartedly address my issues because addressing liberal sensitive issues relating to low income districts with high crime and lots of gun violence isn't good for their politics or the liberal image and taking a hardline-zero tolerence on gang violence could create an extended period of social unrest and political issues for them as well and promoting a more cautious-conservative approach with more strict guidelines and centering social policies on the removal of questionable/ potentially dangerous people with mental illness's could create issues for them too.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't think the US military or the government would remain united in a liberal cause that involves either discarding, removing particular portions relating to certain rights or drastically changing the wording of US Constitution to centralize its power and serve its own interests/puposes for very long.

Nor do I. (wrt the 2nd Amendment, not in the near future)

I don't view the AR-15 as a military weapon and I don't consider those who legally own them to be a threat to me or you or children in a school or the government.

Yeah, but it is; and they are.

My issue is with people who shouldn't have guns who are the primary threats to society and do the bulk of the unlawful shooting and murdering.

I agree, but noone really knows who those people might be. It might be anyone.

I don't expect libs to whole heartedly address my issues because addressing liberal sensitive issues relating to low income districts with high crime and lots of gun violence isn't good for their politics or the liberal image and taking a hardline-zero tolerance on gang violence could create an extended period of social unrest and political issues for them as well and promoting a more cautious-conservative approach with more strict guidelines and centering social policies on the removal of questionable/ potentially dangerous people with mental illness's could create issues for them too.

People in high crime areas support gun control; it's the people in low crime rural areas that do not. Handling gang violence is an issue requiring both law enforcement-- and the kinds of constructive social policy that conservatives usually block and oppose. As far as people with mental illness, the removal that's needed is the removal of guns from their hands, as well as removal of the blocks which conservatives put up to their treatment.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I don't have to back down from anything, because I never said that I "support loonies with guns" ... but the "loony" in question did back down from his own comments a while ago. I guess you think he's the only one not allowed to exaggerate.
By the way, congrats on giving the dude more attention than he deserves, which I'm sure is what he was looking for all along. I never would have heard of him if not for you.

If you did not exaggerate, then you think I am "as "nutty" as the "nutcases" "

You support loonies with guns because you always come down here on the side against gun control. I have not seen you say even that you support more background checks at gun shows and over the internet, which has 92% support from the people (but maybe only 42% support here).

So now that you've heard of him, are you going to follow him? If not, then no harm done. Indeed, people need to know (if) there are nutcases like him out there.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Crossposting for a better tomorrow ^TM

Well, certainly an excellent symbol of a 4T, from a 4T era.

I don't view the AR-15 as a military weapon and I don't consider those who legally own them to be a threat to me or you or children in a school or the government.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yeah, but it is; and they are.

I'm inclined to think if anyone tried to send military guys with AR-15s against opposition with fully automatic weapons they'd firmly disagree with the notion that AR-15s are military weapons.

Again, AR-15s are no more capable than a lot of other civilian weapons sold for hunting purposes. They just look different. They look similar to military weapons and many consider them to be more scary. Do we ban stuff on the basis that some people think they look scary?

The above also touches on the basic core values underlying the discussion. Some people believe they are personally responsible for their own safety and defense, as well as family and neighbors. If one has a sense of personal responsibility, one wants to have the tools necessary to protect.

Others believe it is the professional's job to protect them and find private individuals with guns scary. The fewer private individuals with guns, the less scary the world is. One problem with this sort of thinking from the perspective of those who believe in protecting their own is the response time. The professional first responders seldom get there in time.

It might be less a question of logic, though, and more of emotion.

• He's got a gun! I'm scared!
• They are trying to take my gun, to leave me defenseless, unable to protect my own. I'm scared!

Either emotional reaction is apt to be anchored at a deep down core level. Statistics and observations from the wild aren't apt to make the fear go away.

Originally Posted by The Rani

So just go ahead and assume what I think about it, instead of asking me. That's a great way to have a productive discussion!

Ask? What a novel idea! But wait, that might imply that one is not "All-Knowing".

Originally Posted by Rani

Do you even understand what PoS meant by "2-dimensional thinking?"

I may have been in error; I believe we might actually define his thinking as:"1-Dimensional"!
(Who knows? Maybe he can work his way up to "#2"!)

But, I seriously can't blame him, Rani.
Hell, most of the time "I" don't even know what I'm talking about!!

Prince

PS: I fixed your above quote for you.-Sincerely, PoS()

A Completely Rational, Legal, Gun Buyer/Owner:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health...html?hpt=hp_c1

No blimps were blown up in the creation of this post.

The real winners in the gun debate:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...cc346641e.html

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah ... here's Eric facing the "nutcases":

Yeah, they'd better watch out!

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I Unlike you, I've been around enough to understand that there is a major difference between a legal gunowner who has an AR-15 and shoots it for sport or fun and a young psycho who murders his mother, steals her gun and enters a school and uses it to shoot unarmed teachers and little children for fun.

Of course there is a difference. Just as there is a difference between a nation (e.g. Pakistan) that allows a nuke to fall into the hands of terrorists and the terrorists who use it to destroy an American city. Suppose the personnel responsible for preventing the theft of nukes were killed by the terrorists. Would this absolve Pakistan of any responsibility for the American dead?

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm inclined to think if anyone tried to send military guys with AR-15s against opposition with fully automatic weapons they'd firmly disagree with the notion that AR-15s are military weapons.

Again, AR-15s are no more capable than a lot of other civilian weapons sold for hunting purposes. They just look different. They look similar to military weapons and many consider them to be more scary. Do we ban stuff on the basis that some people think they look scary?

It is quite clear, and my posts nailed the fact, that AR-15s shoot bullets faster than one per second. The victims at Newtown were riddled with bullets. AR-15s and similar weapons have been used in other mass shootings too. And they also use magazine clips with more than 10 rounds. Many politicians agree that these are military weapons that citizens don't need. I agree with Cuomo and Feinstein and Biden. There is a line that can be drawn and legislators are capable of drawing it.

There's certainly a lot of emotion on both sides. But gun control is just sensible; opposition to it is not.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I put those words in quotes because they're your terms, not mine.

So just go ahead and assume what I think about it, instead of asking me. That's a great way to have a productive discussion!
Do you even understand what PoC meant by "2-dimensional thinking?"

If PoC wants to be understood, I suggest he not speak in riddles and just joke around all the time, and not direct sarcasm at me instead of meaningfully debate me. I suspect he does not want to do that though.

You have never said you support background checks at gun shows and for all guns sales. If I am wrong, quote me where you said that. If you didn't say it, then what I say is true about what you have said and not said here at this site. You are defending gun "rights," not gun control of any kind here.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The one hope for us on the other side about this, is that voters, now tired of the massacres, will write to their representatives and demand action on gun control and assault weapons bans. There is a groundswell of support for this, and while it may not be enough, it's still possible.

I expect the liberals to do, exactly follow or repeat and faithfully believe in whatever they're told or lead to believe will happen by their political leaders. As far as the rest, well, time will tell.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Of course there is a difference. Just as there is a difference between a nation (e.g. Pakistan) that allows a nuke to fall into the hands of terrorists and the terrorists who use it to destroy an American city. Suppose the personnel responsible for preventing the theft of nukes were killed by the terrorists. Would this absolve Pakistan of any responsibility for the American dead?

Pakistan would recieve an official ass chewing just for show and a very minor slap on the wrist which would be delivered and accepted with a few winks and knods.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Do you know the specifics of what is involved in "background checks at gun shows and for all guns sales?" I don't. If you do, feel free to enlighten me, and I'll tell you if I think they would be effective in reducing violence or not, and why.
Heyyy ... wait a second. We already have background checks.

Private citizens cannot query NICS, and are at present not required to check background for intra-state sales. Interstate sales must go through an FFL in the destination state. It's the intra-state private sale issue which has picked up the "gun show loophole" label.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Of course there is a difference. Just as there is a difference between a nation (e.g. Pakistan) that allows a nuke to fall into the hands of terrorists and the terrorists who use it to destroy an American city. Suppose the personnel responsible for preventing the theft of nukes were killed by the terrorists. Would this absolve Pakistan of any responsibility for the American dead?

Ah yes, punishing an entire people for the actions of the state. What a novel idea...

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Of course there is a difference. Just as there is a difference between a nation (e.g. Pakistan) that allows a nuke to fall into the hands of terrorists and the terrorists who use it to destroy an American city. Suppose the personnel responsible for preventing the theft of nukes were killed by the terrorists. Would this absolve Pakistan of any responsibility for the American dead?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Pakistan would recieve an official ass chewing just for show and a very minor slap on the wrist which would be delivered and accepted with a few winks and knods.

I am dubious. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks, the American people were really ticked off. The sentiment I remember clearest was that the Middle East should be turned into a glass parking lot, meaning the heat from the nuclear weapons should be used to turn sand into glass. The mood was such that we allowed Bush 43 free reign to declare whatever wars he felt like.

We have since learned that fighting wars is expensive in gold, iron and blood. I suspect we will be reluctant to occupy countries where we can't maintain the number of boots on the ground required to enforce a reasonable peace. Still, if nukes go off on American soil, there will be lots of pressure for a major response.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

i use it as a class demo. First I make the hydrogen gas using HCl and Zn. Then we use H2O2 and KI as a catalyst to make oxygen. Trap both of them in soap bubbles and give them a little start with a candle flame' using a very long spoon. Depending on the ratio of the bubbles in each scoop, it goes with a little pop and flame flash, meaning lots of hydrogen. If the mixture has more oxygen bubbles then we get a sharp crack that can vaporize the soap and it will precipitate out of the air throughout the class during the rest of the day. Lots of fun for everyone.

OT: As a late 1957 Boomer, when I was in HS and the teacher showed us that stuff, half the class was high or tripping. Ah, the 70s. I suspect Rags can corroborate, although he is younger (my brother's age and a true Joneser).

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

The real winners in the gun debate:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...cc346641e.html

I do enjoy seeing capitalism in action, don't you?

CNN put up an article on the NRA's point man. Quick draw: How the NRA's LaPierre keeps his enemies guessing

I'm not in total agreement with LaPierre, but I would like to see laws currently on the books enforced. There is room for new laws, but law without funding enforcement of the law is questionable.

What are some solutions to the ever increasing violence? As I have indicated in other posts, I don't want guns to be outlawed but I do want some viable solutions. Our own government is one that stock piles weapons and promotes too much so called justice through violence.

We are becoming an ever increasing violent culture driven by fear of the other. More and more of our entertainment and TV programs are filled with violence and vengeance. The sad part, we see this as normal. Even the discussions about gun violence has turned into a verbal slug fest.

What is the *root* of all this violence? Personally, I see it as fear personified, and somehow, being desensitized to the killing of living things. Be it our planet, people, animals, or whatever, it appears that some people just don't give a rats booty.


He Shot First: Yet More Senseless Shootings of Kids


With Senate hearings on gun violence still underway, more horrific stories of senseless gun deaths. Rodrigo Diaz, a 22-year-old native of Colombia studying to be a mechanic in Georgia, was shot in the head and killed after he committed the unspeakable crime, en route to ice skating with friends and thanks to a flawed GPs reading, of mistakenly pulling into the driveway of an armed 69-year-old Vietnam veteran and Christian missionary, who without asking questions shot first, because he could. Law enforcement officials called the shooting "not a question of race (but) a tragic event dictated by fear.” Also guns. And Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago girl of whom her godmother said, "Good opportunities were coming her way," was randomly shot and killed while hanging out with her volleyball team in a park in the middle of the afternoon. She had just returned the week before from performing as a majorette at Obama's inauguration. Today, Gabby Giffords, testifying deliberately and powerfully in the Senate, proclaimed, "Too many children are dying. You must act now." Yes.

Surreal Update: Shortly after Giffords testified, several people were reportedly shot at a Phoenix office complex.

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/01/30-1

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

A Completely Rational, Legal, Gun Buyer/Owner:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health...html?hpt=hp_c1

No blimps were blown up in the creation of this post.

Oh let's see what we can find today... Ah! I'll see your murder story and raise you three self-defense ones!

here

here

and here.

What the hell?

Just heard that Israel was responsible for an air strike in Syria tonight.

Originally Posted by Deb C

What the hell?

Just heard that Israel was responsible for an air strike in Syria tonight.

Actually last night. Where you been?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Actually last night. Where you been?

Where did you learn about the attack?