(06-28-2016, 12:13 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2016, 05:07 PM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2016, 09:38 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]I think the following article sums up exactly how the government feels about the little people:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-26...protection
Not surprising since we are simply the livestock for the tax feeders in government.
Oh horse. pucky. If you think your treated as cattle by your gov, have the gonads to move.
That is standard procedure in the modern nation state so there really aren't too many places to go. I guess some animals really are more equal than others which shows how badly you are in need of a clue.
The real question you should be asking is: Will the trend toward centralization that marked the nineteenth and twentieth centuries continue? History suggests than when the predominant institution is fiscally and morally bankrupt then it is on the decline. There is more than enough evidence of that for the nation state in the west.
Yea, sure; just like the Mayan Calander thingee.
(06-27-2016, 05:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2016, 05:01 PM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately, you're correct.
I think there needs to be a significant outright win on limitations followed by years going by where the basic right is never serioseriously challenge for everyone to calm down.
Alas, others might want to see the constant serious challenges to stop first. Every time a spree shooter goes into an area where guns are prohibited and spree shoots, the blue politicians inevitably cry out for more limitations on weapons. The two factions just see cause - effect totally reversed, and the evidence is so ambiguous that both perspectives can be and are embraced.
Thus, both sides think there 'needs' to be a victory by their side first.
Don't care who gets the victory first, the side with momentum is as apt to try to steamroll rather than step back and be reasonable. If the goal is reasonable, you'd want to go for both sides being reasonable at the same time.
Preemptive reasonableness?
Not holding my breath.
Pssss, the other side already has their military grade gun platform; what do they want to win more of, bazookas, tanks, ICBM???
Reasonable people, including gun owners like myself, want these high velocity, large mag guns out of civilIan hands and, of course, we're going to get angry every time these f'n things are used in mass shootings because that exactly why we want them gone.
(06-28-2016, 10:18 AM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]Gun control helps criminals by assuring that their victims won't be able to defend themselves from things like the "surprise visit" from the movie A Clockwork Orange.
Had the elderly writer and his wife been armed, there would have been no Singin' in the Rain - and no movie!
If you want to avoid coming off as virulently moronic, then get into the actual issue. It's not about the loss of the second amendment , it's about defininING the weaponry to be afforded under the right. Unless you believe an ICBM silo is just a gun and everyone should have one, then don't bother, you're not worth anyone's time.
(06-28-2016, 12:03 PM)Anthony 58 Wrote: [ -> ]The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
That's why we call them the police.
(06-28-2016, 05:08 PM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]Pssss, the other side already has their military grade gun platform; what do they want to win more of, bazookas, tanks, ICBM???
Reasonable people, including gun owners like myself, want these high velocity, large mag guns out of civilIan hands and, of course, we're going to get angry every time these f'n things are used in mass shootings because that exactly why we want them gone.
You know what the vast majority of them want, but continue to spew pseudo psychological highly emotional sexually tainted verbiage with heavy doses of lies and strawman. Many think a right to own and carry weapons for self defense a right that ought to be continued. So long as blue politicians propose more restrictions whenever spree shooters cut loose where there are already absolute prohibitions there will be the sort of stubborn rejection you'd expect in a world view conflict.
I know your fantasy laden daydreams. If writing a law could make prohibitions work I'd have more sympathy. I'm in favor within reason of closing loopholes and enforcing what is on the books. The 'within reason' part is looking at diminishing returns. Prohibition is expensive and doesn't work. So long as you don't throw too much money away, put your fingers in the dike until you run out of fingers. I just think your dyke has too many holes.
As I've said many a time, a reasonable compromise that might give both sides most of what they want is a rewritten 2nd that firmly establishes a right to own and carry in self defense, but allows regulation of magazine size and rate of fire. Neither side is in a mood for reasonable, though. Discussing which side is more stubborn and immovable seems fairly pointless. Either faction can be compared to Gibraltar.
(06-28-2016, 05:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2016, 12:03 PM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
That's why we call them the police.
Different parts of the country have different numbers of law enforcement officers per square mile and thus different response times. One size does not fit all. The ideal solution in one place might not speak at all to somewhere else. What one knows and has seen all one's life is not all that there is to know. World views and values -- how one should best understand and respond to the environment -- change as the environment changes. Thinking that what works in one place should be forced on everyone everywhere is a common but very problematic approach to things.
(06-28-2016, 05:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2016, 12:03 PM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
That's why we call them the police.
When seconds count the police are minutes away (or in rural areas, hours).
Also, if you are Black calling the cops to help you might not be a good idea.
Reform the police, rather than proliferate guns, is my suggestion.
If seconds count, then for it to be useful, the gun must be unsafe to have around (not locked, locked away, without ammunition loaded, etc)
Where guns are concerned, there is no such thing as good guys or law abiding citizens. You never know. But there are people with guns contracted to do a paid job under rules and supervision; that helps.
There are many and better ways to stop a bad guy with a gun, than a "good guy" with a gun. That's the point; not that I am calling for a gun ban.
(06-29-2016, 06:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]As I've said many a time, a reasonable compromise that might give both sides most of what they want is a rewritten 2nd that firmly establishes a right to own and carry in self defense, but allows regulation of magazine size and rate of fire. Neither side is in a mood for reasonable, though. Discussing which side is more stubborn and immovable seems fairly pointless. Either faction can be compared to Gibraltar.
"Reasonable" is what YOU propose. No, there's no doubt at all which side is reasonable, and which not.
(06-29-2016, 12:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]"Reasonable" is what YOU propose. No, there's no doubt at all which side is reasonable, and which not.
Tis a messy issues. Tis not obvious. That's why it isn't getting resolved. If you have no doubts, you're not on a reasonable side.
Depending on the meaning of "resolved, " it isn't getting resolved because of the stubbornness and outright evil of the NRA and those who support them and carry out their wishes.
All issues on this gun debate won't get resolved likely for generations. What isn't happening is any progress, and that's entirely due to the NRA and the Republicans. If you can't see that, you are not on a reasonable side.
(06-29-2016, 07:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Depending on the meaning of "resolved, " it isn't getting resolved because of the stubbornness and outright evil of the NRA and those who support them and carry out their wishes.
All issues on this gun debate won't get resolved likely for generations. What isn't happening is any progress, and that's entirely due to the NRA and the Republicans. If you can't see that, you are not on a reasonable side.
Different environments. Different practical solutions. Different values. You might as well say what isn't happening is respect for traditional and law, and that's entirely due to the Brady people and the Democrats.
But expecting you to open your mind to another's perspective is as optimistic as expecting cooperation and compromise.
The gun culture belongs to everyone in America - rich and poor, red and blue, white and black (I didn't even know what a Desert Eagle was until Spice One rapped about one back in 1993).
Good luck to any political faction that seeks to attack it.
(06-30-2016, 07:23 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote: [ -> ]The gun culture belongs to everyone in America - rich and poor, red and blue, white and black (I didn't even know what a Desert Eagle was until Spice One rapped about one back in 1993).
Good luck to any political faction that seeks to attack it.
It's formidible. But it's far from a majority, and is declining in numbers.
(06-30-2016, 01:43 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2016, 07:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Depending on the meaning of "resolved, " it isn't getting resolved because of the stubbornness and outright evil of the NRA and those who support them and carry out their wishes.
All issues on this gun debate won't get resolved likely for generations. What isn't happening is any progress, and that's entirely due to the NRA and the Republicans. If you can't see that, you are not on a reasonable side.
Different environments. Different practical solutions. Different values. You might as well say what isn't happening is respect for traditional and law, and that's entirely due to the Brady people and the Democrats.
Nope
Quote:But expecting you to open your mind to another's perspective is as optimistic as expecting cooperation and compromise.
pot--kettle--black
Trump is right, we not only need to keep having guns. We need even more guns to defend our rights and values.
But let's not forget who started this: The Communist terrorist Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, etc., who shot thousands of cops in the back in the late 1960s and '70s.
Payback is a bitch - ain't it?
(07-01-2016, 07:31 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote: [ -> ]But let's not forget who started this: The Communist terrorist Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, etc., who shot thousands of cops in the back in the late 1960s and '70s.
Payback is a bitch - ain't it?
Vice versa. The cops shot the black panthers.
(07-01-2016, 07:31 AM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]But let's not forget who started this: The Communist terrorist Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, etc., who shot thousands of cops in the back in the late 1960s and '70s.
Payback is a bitch - ain't it?
Yes, how dare black people defend themselves from racist cops wanting to lynch them.
THOUSANDS of cops? THOUSANDS? Got some reliable evidence for that?