Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(07-09-2016, 06:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 05:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The gun fanatics say that gun control is "prohibition," and then trot out the reasons why prohibition doesn't work. Irrelevant straw man. Or they think that banning military weapons is violating our rights. Both non-starters. Gun control is not gun prohibition, and military weapons are different from civilian guns.

I am not advocating prohibition, at least not in the foreseeable future, or by forcible confiscation. But that will not stop the gun fanatics from claiming that I am.

Some of that is just argument about the definition of a word.  Do you want the government to prohibit stuff?  If so, you can reasonably be said to favor a prohibition.  Check your dictionary.  I'm using a common definition.

The other part is fact.  Did alcohol prohibition work well in the 1930s?  How has the war on drugs been doing?  How well have recent attempts to keep bad guys from getting weapons worked?

Putting laws on the books is one thing.  Enforcing them is another.

Whether its preparing against invasion or upholding contract law, government cannot exist without imposing prohibitions.  All but the most inane anarchist wants government to prohibit - the anarchist are free to move to some war lord territory.

There are government prohibitions on civilian access to grenade launchers, flame throwers, armed tanks and ICBMs; I'm not aware of any mass killings where these have been employed.  What does that have to do with alcohol and drug use?

Eric has pointed out at least three times now that his desired prohibition is not against all guns.  What purpose does it serve to continue the ruse of looking up the word in the dictionary?

(07-09-2016, 07:44 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 03:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]The money in my wallet and bank accounts and wherever else it's located is mine. The same applies to him. Whether it's government debt or not isn't going to matter to us or anyone who has money. The question is, do we answer the call or do we ignore the call when big government needs more money. What happens then? Questions Democrats should be asking themselves considering their going to be in up to their necks. Do we lend a bunch of self centered, lying, stealing, low life cheats wearing fancy clothes who have been insulting us for years or do we say good bye as their going down. Do you think I'm going to feel bad when Playdude jumps out a window? I think you continue pumping up the blacks as your pissing down on whites. LIBERAL WISDOM AT IT'S BEST.

You overlooked one very important detail about his response.  It was literally: It can't happen here.  Germany was simply one example of a government going very bad in a short amount of time.  We have, courtesy of the NSA, nationwide surveillance of America.  This was the kind of thing that only happened in places behind the Iron Curtain when I was young but the Land of the Free does now what it derided communist nations for.

When you look at enough financial data the picture that emerges is very clear and it shows an empire reaching the end of the line.  What event will serve as the catalyst that causes a very fragile system to break is unknown.  That it will happen is a certainty because there is no chance that either major political party has the will to tell the FSA, along with everyone else, that the party is over.  In that moment panicked government officials tend to do very nasty things to save their power, position and in some cases their own lives.

If the empire is reaching the end of the line, then the only question remaining is why you and Classic haven't taken over a federal bird sanctuary somewhere?  I'd like the address so I can send you two some dildos and body lube for the duration. 

(07-09-2016, 10:00 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 05:47 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 05:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Galen is not listening to the webmaster's advice.

It's been an a hard week.  Too many shootings.

The board goes through rough times.  Usually there is one poster, sometimes a poster in long standing who has long more or lest behaved, who just decides to abandon civility.  When one guy goes wild with insults or similar stuff, and the webmaster doesn't step on it firmly, the rest of the contributors will match the behavior of the worst actor.  It's the 'well, he's getting away with it' school of civility or lack thereof.  This time some folks aren't responding to the webmaster.  Well, Playwright seems to be missing.  Anyway, this is a test of whether the new board with its new management is going to be sustainable.  Would everybody please revert to the default usually mostly civil mode?

Yes I have which is why i reported him to snip it in the bud and also put him on ignore to prevent further insults being added here. If he keeps it up with others I advise them to do the same.

Not everyone is a coward.

(07-09-2016, 11:13 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 10:33 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 10:14 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 10:08 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry just catching up now. It was late and had to go to bed. I just got back from work today. Will get myself sorted and check on your link. Yes well the kiwi is trying to part truth from fiction. What works and what doesn't. What is sustainable and what is not. Great recessions and city destroying earthquakes do that to people as reality smacks you across the face. I will bet the GI's also went through the same transition. brb.

Yes, they did.  Many of them went on about it at length.  The need for survival tends to focus the mind wonderfully.

Wow. I wish I could have heard what they said. The remaining GIs at my work place are beyond talking about their past due to dementia or other age related conditions. Except for one and even she drifts off occasionally. Quite sad to see.

One thing I can tell you is that they did not respect those who simply gave up.  They were willing to help if you payed attention to what they were saying.  Got a bit of a different perspective about the Great Depression than the Lost had but then they were getting started at about that time.  In many ways they were more sympathetic about what Generation X was facing in their twenties than the Boomers were.

Sorry to bring some reality in, but the GIs would not have helped you take over bird sanctuaries.  They might have snickered a little about your dildos but mostly they would have hauled you off to jail or put you in the Army to grow up a tad.

(07-10-2016, 12:48 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 11:22 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 11:13 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]One thing I can tell you is that they did not respect those who simply gave up.  They were willing to help if you payed attention to what they were saying.  Got a bit of a different perspective about the Great Depression than the Lost had but then they were getting started at about that time.  In many ways they were more sympathetic about what Generation X was facing in their twenties than the Boomers were.

Well I can understand why they would be more sympathetic. They knew what hardship was like from experience. I would be exactly the same to younger ones trying to get started in a harsh environment that is stacked up to make you fail. I can also understand not respecting those who give up. You do not improve your life with that attitude. Just get back up and try again till you succeed. My generation understands that well due to the quakes. We did not sit and cry about it. We teamed up after every large quake and cleaned up and helped those in need. Same enthusiasm even after our fourth large quake clean up and check on the people. Can do attitude does wonders to improve a situation. I wonder what the different perspective was of the great depression compared to the lost?

The GIs really did tend to think big and the phrase "failure is not an option" really did suit them.  They did not think impossible the way Boomers so often do.  They also didn't think that things would necessarily be easy but success was an option.  For the Lost you have a similar level of competence but the success condition was that the world didn't explode.

This is hilarious, suggesting the GIs were Libertarians.

And the irony of a Libertarian, who cannot find their nirvana anywhere in the world or history, talking about getting things done! 

(07-10-2016, 01:02 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 12:48 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 11:22 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 11:13 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]One thing I can tell you is that they did not respect those who simply gave up.  They were willing to help if you payed attention to what they were saying.  Got a bit of a different perspective about the Great Depression than the Lost had but then they were getting started at about that time.  In many ways they were more sympathetic about what Generation X was facing in their twenties than the Boomers were.

Well I can understand why they would be more sympathetic. They knew what hardship was like from experience. I would be exactly the same to younger ones trying to get started in a harsh environment that is stacked up to make you fail. I can also understand not respecting those who give up. You do not improve your life with that attitude. Just get back up and try again till you succeed. My generation understands that well due to the quakes. We did not sit and cry about it. We teamed up after every large quake and cleaned up and helped those in need. Same enthusiasm even after our fourth large quake clean up and check on the people. Can do attitude does wonders to improve a situation. I wonder what the different perspective was of the great depression compared to the lost?

The GIs really did tend to think big and the phrase "failure is not an option" really did suit them.  They did not think impossible the way Boomers so often do.  They also didn't think that things would necessarily be easy but success was an option.  For the Lost you have a similar level of competence but the success condition was that the world didn't explode.

I see that similar way of thinking in kiwi millies. I really admire the GIs for the can do spirit and thinking big. I see that in myself actually. Think big but think of ways to make it a reality that is sustainable. I call myself a realistic idealist.

Taking on the government with guns is big GI thinking?

Of course, you call yourself a "realistic idealist," but gad, you really should be a SNL writer!

(07-10-2016, 04:34 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 04:28 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 03:12 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]A video for liberals to consider.

Stats on what they believe is ok culturally do not lie. It should be deeply disturbing to progressives freedom we fought for.

Please watch with open ears and minds as this is reality especially as it will affect the future of future generations.

I don't see Hillary as being particularly competent or truthful but he does outline rather clearly the inability, or rather unwillingness, of the left to identify or name this particular problem.  I can think of quite a few other issues where this is true as well.  I bet you have been researching how Europe has dealt with Islam in the past and it is not pretty.  Many of the the former Warsaw Pact countries are refusing to take any of the migrants because of that history.

You may find this little video on the Crusades to be of some value.

Neither do i mate. That was not the purpose of why i shared the video but more to do with the spread of regression. The stats are what concern me. Yes i have been doing a bit of study   I have a few more vids lined up to watch later of interviews with others educated on this topic but they will have to wait till tuesday and the following days as it is late here and i have a double shift tomorrow. Thanks for the vid i will add it to the collection

Gad, you three are poster children for ISIS recruitment efforts -

'Hey, 3 billion Muslims, you are just troglodytes - nay, nay, nanaynay, and you will never be as sophisticated as us Christians that want to overthrow our government with guns!"

(07-10-2016, 02:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 02:27 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 01:49 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 11:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]As a liberal, I can say that about the Hard Right, which I often see as slick narcissists if not sociopaths with insatiable appetites for gain and indulgence but no respect for people other than themselves. Much of what they say insults me.

Hint: The ones you rely on are the ones who are more likely to screw you. You don't have to worry about me screwing you. I'm all good as far as money and property are concerned. Hint: We didn't take your jobs. The Democrats basically gave them to the world. You need to think about all the happy Mexicans and Chinese that were created with your parties sacrifice. I mean, come on, how do liberal frat boys really have in common with the working class. Really, I do feel sorry for those folks and wish they had good politicians who cared more about them and less about supporting them enough to keep themselves in office. I understand that the bulk of your base is pretty clueless and uncaring as far as the going on in the world. I understand the liberal educated get the bulk of their information networks that cater to them. Its so funny to see how they react when they when they're challenged by someone who has a bit more brain than they're accustomed too. BTW, they don't seem to care about the working class as much as they're concerned about the poor.

It seems like life experience has exposed you two to divergent sorts of folk?  If so, your assumptions of how humans and members of various cultures behave are incompatible?  I'm also seeing some vile stereotypes?  Those with different values are presumed to be vile in one way or another?

I tend to trust more what people say positively about their own culture, and be dubious about attempts to slander folks they disagree with.  If this goes on focusing on slandering the other guy, I'd not trust much of it.

Still, it shows how and why we get divided.  All one has to do is nurse grudges and think the worst about those who think differently and we end up where we are.

Bob, I don't have issues with your so-called values. I'm sure that we have similar values. I have issues with your politicians and whether or not they truly represent certain values or if they're just using values to get ahead.  I have at least three sets of values. I represent American values (classical liberal values). I have moral values. I have personal values. I get the impression that you have one set of values and that's it. I get the impression that progressive values are it as far as your values go. Although, when I press you a bit, I learn you have values we do commonly share. Values that are at odds with the progressive values that you stand for. In short, I don't like your politicians. I don't like the bulk of your base. I don't like the people your party attracts. PB is pathetic. Eric is a self centered leach. Odin is an issue waiting to happen. Hilary Clinton is Hilary Clinton. Kerry is a weasel. Al Sharpton is worthless piece of shit. Liberal today ain't what means and you're tied it. White American and portions of black America, brown America, yellow America, gay America, female America have had with your people. A large enough group to cut ties, remove the Constitution and the flag and reestablish and move on. You'll have a choice to make when this begins to happen during the 4t.

The choice is to continue to make low-informational voters like yourself less and less politically relevant.

You will still be allowed to yell at kids to get off your lawn if you decide not to take our offer to send you to Greenland all expenses paid.

(07-10-2016, 06:17 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 02:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Bob, I don't have issues with your so-called values. I'm sure that we have similar values. I have issues with your politicians and whether or not they truly represent certain values or if they're just using values to get ahead.  I have at least three sets of values. I represent American values (classical liberal values). I have moral values. I have personal values. I get the impression that you have one set of values and that's it. I get the impression that progressive values are it as far as your values go. Although, when I press you a bit, I learn you have values we do commonly share. Values that are at odds with the progressive values that you stand for. In short, I don't like your politicians. I don't like the bulk of your base. I don't like the people your party attracts. PB is pathetic. Eric is a self centered leach. Odin is an issue waiting to happen. Hilary Clinton is Hilary Clinton. Kerry is a weasel. Al Sharpton is worthless piece of shit. Liberal today ain't what means and you're tied it. White American and portions of black America, brown America, yellow America, gay America, female America have had with your people. A large enough group to cut ties, remove the Constitution and the flag and reestablish and move on. You'll have a choice to make when this begins to happen during the 4t.

This one takes some answering.  Sorry if I go on at length, look at it from multiple angles, and the angles sometimes conflict with one another.  Well, sorta sorry.  That's kind of what I do.

Elites seek power and wealth.  It's what they do.  They hang out with one another, make friends with each other, and make deals with each other.  In other words, power corrupts.  Liberals distrust conservative politicians.  Conservatives distrust liberal politicians.  We will be making progress when liberals and conservatives come together to distrust all politicians.

At this point, I can complement the conservatives in that they have rejected their establishment business as usual politicians and are at least trying for something radically different.  The radically different I can approve of.  That the choice is Trump....   Not so much, but I'll leave that alone for the moment.

Conservative politicians give lip service to smaller government.  Progressives give lip service to government serving the working People.  Both are admirable goals.  The bases on both sides are reasonable in looking for these things.  Neither is happening, not to anywhere near the extent that I would like.  To a great extent, each flavor of politician is blocking the other, making it hard to keep promises made to either base.  I'd like to see more creative cooperation in working together to get closer to doing both.  What I'm seeing is the use of the other party as an excuse for not doing as promised.

To a great extent, this is because the political elites are serving the monetary elites rather than either base.  Campaign contributions from wealthy donors is seen as a better path to gain and keep power than serving the base.  This is apt to continue until and unless we have a major values shift.  Accepting contributions from major donors has got to be viewed as a sign of corruption, a disqualification from serving in office.

The Republicans have traditionally been the party of the Robber Barons.  While the parties have flip flopped on many issues, with at one point the Republicans being the party freeing the black people, and at another time their being the isolationists, some things change, with the Democrats flip flopping on such issues right with them.  Still, the Republicans have always been with the Robber Barons.  If anything is changing recently, it is that both parties are currently serving the Robber Barons.  Both parties -- well, Sanders did buck the trend somewhat -- are in bed with big money.  This is not a good thing for Everyman.

I've been watching the various partisans on the forum accuse the other side's politicians of being, dirty, rotten, corrupt, divorced from service to the people and being otherwise vile and unspeakable, and I can agree whole heartedly with most of it.  Going in either direction.  I'd like to see more emphasis on politics, less emphasis on personal vilification.  I don't want to spend a lot of time reading about bad personal habits or personalities.  I'm more concerned with how politicians drive policy, less about them as people.  I'm not in love with Hillary, nor do I assume that all Republicans are in love with Trump.  That our current political system nominated two people very much disliked for good reason by lots of folk is very very problematic.  As much as I dislike our two presumptive nominees, I dislike the process that made them our presumptive nominees even less.  The insider elites have got a system of locking out anyone who might rock the boat down pretty good.

Jefferson's self evident truths are close to the heart of my political values.  People will suffer corruption and tyranny while it can be suffered, but have the right to revolt when it becomes intolerable.  Just how intolerable is intolerable?  When does Jefferson cease to be a founding father embodying stability, democracy, Rights and all our American virtues, and when do we remember Jefferson the revolutionary?  Is now the time to water the Tree of Liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants?  You have clearly reached your Popeye Point.  Enough is enough, and enough is too much.

I don't know that the country is with you yet.  We have the beginnings of a spiral of rhetoric and violence, but the spiral is centered on systematic government mistreatment -- including fatal mistreatment -- of minorities.  It isn't centered on economic inequality.  I'd like to see it embrace both.  We are also early on in the spiral.  We are no where close to where the Sons of Liberty went before the Revolution, John Brown before the Civil War, or even the Communists leading up to and during the Great Depression.

In a way, I'm almost encouraged by the spiral.  The corrupt elites aren't apt to give up their self serving system without a threat of violence, a threat that they could lose their position entirely.  I half anticipate that they will give ground in the presence of a viable threat, but will continue to resist calls for change otherwise.  The ballot box might be mighty, but it is clearly not mighty enough.  The voice of the people has be divided and neutralized.  In an abstract and distant way, yes, the Powers that Be need to know that what they have been doing is unacceptable.

This doesn't mean I'm going to go out, buy a bunch of firearms, and try to find the physical address of various 4T posters.  They aren't the enemy.  No matter how much some of them irritate, violence at this point doesn't seem the correct way to end the irritation.

In general, I'd like to see a more nuanced, less partisan, view of the crisis.  Folk on both sides are buying in to much to the unraveling values.  They have decent ideas of what ought to be done.  The have biased false demonized views on what the other faction wants to do.  An awful lot of energy is being spent trying to convince the other guys that they are bad guys.  Good luck with that.  Everyone is equally dedicated to the principle that they are on the side of the angels.  I see no angels here, and few true devils.  I don't see attempts to demonize as overly constructive.  Folks are pretty much immune to seeing themselves as vile demons, no matter what vile image of them you have imagined and might even believe in.

Both sides have seen some stuff that is real and should be pursued.

Is anyone against a small effective government that really helps those who really need help, tries not to interfere too much with people's lives, and is not in the business of enriching those already rich?  Is there are way to pursue virtues rather than try to work up as much misunderstand and rage as possible to those caught under the other jaw of the trap?

I'd like to think so.  At least, I'd like to think we could do better.

What's funny about this is you don't see the irony of wasting your prose on Classic.

4Ts don't end with everyone joining hands around the campfire to a rousing refrain of Kumbaya.  Lots of people lose.

This 4T, low informational voters (including ammosexuals) are going to lose political power.  Trump's replacing trickle-down meme with xenophobic ones is just another way to keep the sheeple manipulated.  The elites are only going to be dealt with from the Left, and it's not going to be revolutionary but evolutionary (a Hillary before an Elizabeth) - the ship is far to0 big to turn on a dime without sinking; you seem to grasp that, but the notion of a cure from the Right is way way off.

(07-10-2016, 11:42 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 04:42 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 06:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 05:48 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: [ -> ]The gun fanatics say that gun control is "prohibition," and then trot out the reasons why prohibition doesn't work. Irrelevant straw man. Or they think that banning military weapons is violating our rights. Both non-starters. Gun control is not gun prohibition, and military weapons are different from civilian guns.

I am not advocating prohibition, at least not in the foreseeable future, or by forcible confiscation. But that will not stop the gun fanatics from claiming that I am.

Some of that is just argument about the definition of a word.  Do you want the government to prohibit stuff?  If so, you can reasonably be said to favor a prohibition.  Check your dictionary.  I'm using a common definition.

The other part is fact.  Did alcohol prohibition work well in the 1930s?  How has the war on drugs been doing?  How well have recent attempts to keep bad guys from getting weapons worked?

Putting laws on the books is one thing.  Enforcing them is another.

It's not about the definition; that can't be disputed. You can't say that alcohol prohibition has ended, and then say gun control is prohibition. Not and still be in accord with reality. Drinking is NOT allowed for everyone and under all conditions. To think so is not to be concerned with facts. So the argument that prohibition does not work is a pure straw man, and does not deserve consideration in this debate.

The end game as you have made abundantly clear is in fact prohibition.

HorseshZt.

(07-11-2016, 02:48 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 11:55 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 11:42 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 04:42 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 06:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Some of that is just argument about the definition of a word.  Do you want the government to prohibit stuff?  If so, you can reasonably be said to favor a prohibition.  Check your dictionary.  I'm using a common definition.

The other part is fact.  Did alcohol prohibition work well in the 1930s?  How has the war on drugs been doing?  How well have recent attempts to keep bad guys from getting weapons worked?

Putting laws on the books is one thing.  Enforcing them is another.

It's not about the definition; that can't be disputed. You can't say that alcohol prohibition has ended, and then say gun control is prohibition. Not and still be in accord with reality. Drinking is NOT allowed for everyone and under all conditions. To think so is not to be concerned with facts. So the argument that prohibition does not work is a pure straw man, and does not deserve consideration in this debate.

The end game as you have made abundantly clear is in fact prohibition.

As I have made clear, only when and if the people want it, by a large enough majority that there won't be gun lovers crying "from my cold, dead hands!"

Not likely in my lifetime or yours. And my ideas are irrelevant; the gun control activists include gun owners like Gabby Giffords. Prohibition is not their proposal.

Don't give me that shit.  Everybody with a working brain knows that you would impose a gun ban if you could get away with it.  Truth is, the whole gun control movement is attempt to get a ban on the installment plan.  When you read their own material they make that pretty clear.

And on your side, there are those who would like to have grenade launchers if not an ICBM or two.

That doesn't mean there's a chance of it happening.

It's just red meat to throw out when the rest of your arguments go down the toilet.

(07-11-2016, 02:48 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 11:55 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 11:42 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 04:42 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 06:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Some of that is just argument about the definition of a word.  Do you want the government to prohibit stuff?  If so, you can reasonably be said to favor a prohibition.  Check your dictionary.  I'm using a common definition.

The other part is fact.  Did alcohol prohibition work well in the 1930s?  How has the war on drugs been doing?  How well have recent attempts to keep bad guys from getting weapons worked?

Putting laws on the books is one thing.  Enforcing them is another.

It's not about the definition; that can't be disputed. You can't say that alcohol prohibition has ended, and then say gun control is prohibition. Not and still be in accord with reality. Drinking is NOT allowed for everyone and under all conditions. To think so is not to be concerned with facts. So the argument that prohibition does not work is a pure straw man, and does not deserve consideration in this debate.

The end game as you have made abundantly clear is in fact prohibition.

As I have made clear, only when and if the people want it, by a large enough majority that there won't be gun lovers crying "from my cold, dead hands!"

Not likely in my lifetime or yours. And my ideas are irrelevant; the gun control activists include gun owners like Gabby Giffords. Prohibition is not their proposal.

Don't give me that shit.  Everybody with a working brain knows that you would impose a gun ban if you could get away with it.  Truth is, the whole gun control movement is attempt to get a ban on the installment plan.  When you read their own material they make that pretty clear.

Maybe some obscure group that no-one follows? Quote me. Which members of the "gun control movement" say they are attempting to get a ban?

When YOU support a ban, then I'll be in favor of it. How's that?

DALLAS — As a demonstration against police shootings made its way downtown here on Thursday, it differed from others around the country in one startling way: Twenty to 30 of the marchers showed up with AR-15s and other types of military-style rifles and wore them openly, with the straps slung across their shoulders and backs.

In Texas, it was not only legal. It was commonplace.

The state has long been a bastion of pro-gun sentiment and the kind of place where both Democrats and Republicans openly talk about the guns they own and carry, on their person, in their vehicles, at their offices, at their homes and even in the halls of the Texas Capitol. And in recent years, as gun rights continued to expand, activists have exploited a decades-old freedom to openly carry a rifle in public by showing up at demonstrations with their so-called long guns.

Advocates have carried their rifles at the Alamo in San Antonio and outside mosques in the Dallas suburbs. But city and county leaders said the presence of armed protesters openly carrying rifles on Thursday through downtown Dallas had created confusion for the police as the attack unfolded, and in its immediate aftermath made it more difficult for officers to distinguish between suspects and marchers.

Two men who were armed and a woman who was with them were detained, fueling an early, errant theory by the police that there was more than one gunman.

Mayor Mike Rawlings of Dallas suggested in an interview on Sunday that, in the wake of the attack, he supported tightening the state’s gun laws to restrict the carrying of rifles and shotguns in public.

“There should be some way to say I shouldn’t be bringing my shotgun to a Mavericks game or to a protest because something crazy should happen,” said Mr. Rawlings, a Democrat. “I just want to come back to common sense.”

The state’s open-carry culture, the mayor said, had imperiled people on the streets of Dallas. “This is the first time — but a very concrete time — that I think a law can hurt citizens, police and not protect them,” he said, adding that he was not anti-gun and that he owned a shotgun himself. “I think it’s amazing when you think that there is a gunfight going on, and you are supposed to be able to sort who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.”

According to the authorities, Micah Johnson, 25, opened fire on police officers who were accompanying marchers protesting policing practices. Mr. Johnson, who had been in the Army Reserve, used a rifle to fire from a parking garage and while on foot on the streets below, killing five police officers.

The Dallas police chief, David O. Brown, described to CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday the amount of confusion the armed protesters initially caused.

He said the event had attracted “20 or 30 people” who “showed up with AR-15 rifles slung across their shoulder.”

“They were wearing gas masks,” Mr. Brown said. “They were wearing bulletproof vests and camo fatigues, for effect, for whatever reason.”

When the shooting started, “they began to run,” he said. And because they ran in the middle of the shooting, he said, the police on the scene viewed them as suspects. “Someone is shooting at you from a perched position, and people are running with AR-15s and camo gear and gas masks and bulletproof vests, they are suspects, until we eliminate that.”

“Doesn’t make sense to us, but that’s their right in Texas,” he said. He did not say whether he supported restricting the carrying of rifles on the streets.

On Saturday, President Obama also told reporters that one of the challenges for the Dallas officers who were being shot at was that Texas was an open-carry state. “Imagine if you’re a police officer and you’re trying to sort out who is shooting at you and there are a bunch of people who have got guns on them,” Mr. Obama said..........
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/tex....html?_r=1

...I wonder how the Right thinks of "gun rights" when some terrorist exploits a peaceful protest as a pretext for killing the police.

(07-11-2016, 09:39 AM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 02:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 02:27 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2016, 01:49 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2016, 11:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]As a liberal, I can say that about the Hard Right, which I often see as slick narcissists if not sociopaths with insatiable appetites for gain and indulgence but no respect for people other than themselves. Much of what they say insults me.

Hint: The ones you rely on are the ones who are more likely to screw you. You don't have to worry about me screwing you. I'm all good as far as money and property are concerned. Hint: We didn't take your jobs. The Democrats basically gave them to the world. You need to think about all the happy Mexicans and Chinese that were created with your parties sacrifice. I mean, come on, how do liberal frat boys really have in common with the working class. Really, I do feel sorry for those folks and wish they had good politicians who cared more about them and less about supporting them enough to keep themselves in office. I understand that the bulk of your base is pretty clueless and uncaring as far as the going on in the world. I understand the liberal educated get the bulk of their information networks that cater to them. Its so funny to see how they react when they when they're challenged by someone who has a bit more brain than they're accustomed too. BTW, they don't seem to care about the working class as much as they're concerned about the poor.

It seems like life experience has exposed you two to divergent sorts of folk?  If so, your assumptions of how humans and members of various cultures behave are incompatible?  I'm also seeing some vile stereotypes?  Those with different values are presumed to be vile in one way or another?

I tend to trust more what people say positively about their own culture, and be dubious about attempts to slander folks they disagree with.  If this goes on focusing on slandering the other guy, I'd not trust much of it.

Still, it shows how and why we get divided.  All one has to do is nurse grudges and think the worst about those who think differently and we end up where we are.

Bob, I don't have issues with your so-called values. I'm sure that we have similar values. I have issues with your politicians and whether or not they truly represent certain values or if they're just using values to get ahead.  I have at least three sets of values. I represent American values (classical liberal values). I have moral values. I have personal values. I get the impression that you have one set of values and that's it. I get the impression that progressive values are it as far as your values go. Although, when I press you a bit, I learn you have values we do commonly share. Values that are at odds with the progressive values that you stand for. In short, I don't like your politicians. I don't like the bulk of your base. I don't like the people your party attracts. PB is pathetic. Eric is a self centered leach. Odin is an issue waiting to happen. Hilary Clinton is Hilary Clinton. Kerry is a weasel. Al Sharpton is worthless piece of shit. Liberal today ain't what means and you're tied it. White American and portions of black America, brown America, yellow America, gay America, female America have had with your people. A large enough group to cut ties, remove the Constitution and the flag and reestablish and move on. You'll have a choice to make when this begins to happen during the 4t.

The choice is to continue to make low-informational voters like yourself less and less politically relevant.

You will still be allowed to yell at kids to get off your lawn if you decide not to take our offer to send you to Greenland all expenses paid.

This low informational voter has been kicking your ass for years. Like I said, the choice will be to extend you a hand or watch you go down. I'm not concerned about the true Americans. The true Americans as a group of individuals will find ways to make do and provide for each other and their families like they always have throughout our history. I feel bad for you in a way. I always feel bad for idiots who find themselves up to their eyeballs in debt, trouble, mistakes, ect. If the so-call zombie apocalypse claims you for all the years of stupidity and reliance on someone other than one self, I will feel bad but not overly sympathetic to the emotional pain and hardship that you'll be experiencing.

(07-12-2016, 08:42 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]...I wonder how the Right thinks of "gun rights" when some terrorist exploits a peaceful protest as a pretext for killing the police.

Well, we sure know how the AR ban in California came about -

How Ronald Reagan learned to love gun control

Quote:In California, Reagan threw his support behind the Mulford Act after a heavily armed group of Black Panthers gathered at the state capitol while the new governor was supposed to be hosting a group of eighth-graders for fried chicken, Winkler recounts at The Atlantic. That same afternoon, Reagan told reporters that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." Mulford quickly added a provision to his bill barring loaded firearms from the capitol, except for when carried by law enforcement.

[img][/img]

Now if we can just get these guys to walk around the state capital offices in Austin and every other open carry state, I'm sure we see some immediate bans offered by some of the most NRA-friendly governors and state legislatures in the country.  

(07-12-2016, 10:54 AM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-12-2016, 08:42 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]...I wonder how the Right thinks of "gun rights" when some terrorist exploits a peaceful protest as a pretext for killing the police.

Well, we sure know how the AR ban in California came about -

How Ronald Reagan learned to love gun control

Quote:In California, Reagan threw his support behind the Mulford Act after a heavily armed group of Black Panthers gathered at the state capitol while the new governor was supposed to be hosting a group of eighth-graders for fried chicken, Winkler recounts at The Atlantic. That same afternoon, Reagan told reporters that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." Mulford quickly added a provision to his bill barring loaded firearms from the capitol, except for when carried by law enforcement.

[img][/img]

Now if we can just get these guys to walk around the state capital offices in Austin and every other open carry state, I'm sure we see some immediate bans offered by some of the most NRA-friendly governors and state legislatures in the country.  

One of them took out five of our police officers in Dallas. Curious, what would you do if a large group of them invaded your blue neighborhood?

One of them? One of whom? A deranged former soldier?

Deranged people don't need to have military weapons to kill police with. Not allowing deranged former soldiers to have military weapons to kill police, does not violate your constitutional rights.

(07-12-2016, 03:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]One of them? One of whom? A deranged former soldier?

Deranged people don't need to have military weapons to kill police with. Not allowing deranged former soldiers to have military weapons to kill police, does not violate your constitutional rights.

He was a young black militant like the ones pictured. I keep listening to liberals saying the good guys with guns didn't stop the bad guys with the guns in Dallas. I'd would like to ask the smug liberal congressman or white pansycrat which group prevailed in the end. I know it wasn't the group running away or the liberal white boy with long whiskers clutching his cross and praying for Jesus to save him.

(07-12-2016, 04:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-12-2016, 03:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]One of them? One of whom? A deranged former soldier?

Deranged people don't need to have military weapons to kill police with. Not allowing deranged former soldiers to have military weapons to kill police, does not violate your constitutional rights.

He was a young black militant like the ones pictured. I keep listening to liberals saying the good guys with guns didn't stop the bad guys with the guns in Dallas. I'd would like to ask the smug liberal congressman or white pansycrat which group prevailed in the end. I know it wasn't the group running away or the liberal white boy with long whiskers clutching his cross and praying for Jesus to save him.

The Dallas incident did break a few normal patterns.  The shooter's tactics were unusual.  I think the intent was to take a few shots and get away, but he took to many shots and was unable to break off contact.

But spree shooters normally prefer gun free zones...  schools, military bases, hospitals, etc...  anywhere where prohibiting guns has made folk helpless.  This guy deliberately went somewhere with a heavy police presence, police representing a target as well as a threat.  This was not the usual spree shooter who wanders around picking off unarmed people at short range until the opposition arrives, then committing suicide.

Some of the protestors were carrying rifles.  Dallas is about as right to carry a place as you'll find in the US.  From all I've heard none of the armed protestors joined the exchange of fire... on either side.  Black Lives Matters protestors aren't the best friends the police have.  They didn't come to the cop's aid.  Still, how much of that is prudence?  A black guy shooting when cops are going down, even if he is shooting towards the active shooter?  They just staid out of it, and likely just as well for both them and the police.  That was enough of a mess.


I'm used to saying the spiral of violence isn't really escalating.  An awful lot of incidents lately, though.  A long hot summer, to revive a phrase from the awakening?  Still, with the possible exception of Dallas, kids out of school having nothing better to do than protest haven't been much of a factor.  

Is it thus possibly something longer term?  Or is it the two incidents of police using excessive / lethal forces happening so close together.