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

(11-27-2018, 11:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-27-2018, 03:54 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Not am sure if the red are right anymore.  I have my doubts.  Letting go of the violent trump card and trusting softer forms of power may be risky.

Self-defense is often even more violent than overt aggression.

Maybe it is supposed to be that way?  If you are always equipped, trained and ready, civilized folk can beat the barbarians?  Thus, stay equipped, trained and ready?

Fighting guns and armies with dogs and orchestras doesn't get it done.

(11-27-2018, 11:19 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-27-2018, 11:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-27-2018, 03:54 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Not am sure if the red are right anymore.  I have my doubts.  Letting go of the violent trump card and trusting softer forms of power may be risky.

Self-defense is often even more violent than overt aggression.

Maybe it is supposed to be that way?  If you are always equipped, trained and ready, civilized folk can beat the barbarians?  Thus, stay equipped, trained and ready?

Civilized folks are better at making aggression futile. They are good at establishing rules of engagement and giving people good reasons to not turn violent. Contract law is a better way of resolving disputes than is a firearm. opportunity is better than violent crime.

Quote:Fighting guns and armies with dogs and orchestras doesn't get it done.

I've heard of people who killed for a pack or cigarettes or a six-pack of beer -- but never for a ticket to a concert of the Chicago Symphony. The latter is far more expensive. Maybe appreciating the symphony, impressionist art, the ballet, the opera, or poetry makes someone more capable of subtlety in thought and thinking beyond the immediate desire. Violent crime is almost never a thinking man's activity. Maybe in a really sick society whose leadership is gangsters there are sophisticated people plotting enslavement and mass murder or at least the killing of dissidents or heretics, but that says more about how uncivilized the political order got.

The only way to defeat an invading army is with a bigger or better-run army. Dogs and guns? In South Africa, a violent society, people have dogs defending their guns. Three 80-pound dogs make one 240-pound lioness as a predatory force.  Even small dogs have bitten gun-wielding assailants behind the wrist and separated the gun from the crook. A well-behaved dog is safe. A dog with defends itself or loved ones with the methods of a lethal predator.

It's telling that the Nazis quickly prohibited Jews from keeping dogs. SS men and the Gestapo did not want to experience painful bites from dogs that could figure easily that the SS or Gestapo was up to no good.

We do not have a citizen militia anymore, except for those renegade ones not recognized by law as national militias. We have regular armed forces and the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment is outdated, no matter what any founding fathers said about it.

(11-28-2018, 04:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]We do not have a citizen militia anymore, except for those renegade ones not recognized by law as national militias. We have regular armed forces and the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment is outdated, no matter what any founding fathers said about it.

Not that it matters, but there are several states that have militias as well.  In Virginia, it's the faculty and cadet corps at Virginia Military Academy.  I believe South Carolina has the same arrangement with the Citadel.  Mostly, they march and attend parades.

(11-28-2018, 04:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]We do not have a citizen militia anymore, except for those renegade ones not recognized by law as national militias. We have regular armed forces and the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment is outdated, no matter what any founding fathers said about it.

Which is exit why the founding fathers granted a right to the People, not to a privileged group. Well, they always gave rights to the People, not to privileged groups. It was just the Jim Crow court that...

Ah, well.

I cannot stop you from having an opinion, of course. I am just saying it is not the only vaguely solid one, that someone can see both sides without saying either is irrational. In that case, with the way constitutional amendments are set up, there are and should be no changes. This being the case, spending political capitol on the issue is wasteful. On good days, even you recognize the situation.

Police response does depend on population density. Given that key difference, it is hardly surprising that the two populations disagree. The official nanny state representatives just cannot get there in time, so you need a private responsibly to take over where the distances involved are real. Those who live in nice comfortable civilized places do not remember the realities of the situation. It becomes real, sinks into ones bones, where one is.

A brief Obama snippet.

Obama Wrote:Washington (CNN)Former President Barack Obama on Tuesday evening blamed a shifting media environment for sharpening partisan divides, saying that Fox News viewers and New York Times readers live in "entirely different" realities.

"Whether it was (Walter) Cronkite or (David) Brinkley or what have you, there was a common set of facts, a baseline around which both parties had to adapt and respond to," Obama said at Rice University.

"And by the time I take office, what you increasingly have is a media environment in which if you are a Fox News viewer, you have an entirely different reality than if you are a New York Times reader," he continued.

Obama said that because of this, "the basis of each respective party have become more ideological."

The former President has previously denounced media tribalism. In 2010, Obama spoke at the University of Michigan commencement ceremony and encouraged the crowd to try broadening their news intake.

"If you're somebody who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in a while. If you're a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on The Huffington Post website. It may make your blood boil, your mind may not be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship. It is essential for our democracy," he said.

True enough.

(11-28-2018, 05:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2018, 04:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]We do not have a citizen militia anymore, except for those renegade ones not recognized by law as national militias. We have regular armed forces and the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment is outdated, no matter what any founding fathers said about it.

Which is exit why the founding fathers granted a right to the People, not to a privileged group.  Well, they always gave rights to the People, not to privileged groups.  It was just the Jim Crow court that...

Ah, well.

I cannot stop you from having an opinion, of course.  I am just saying it is not the only vaguely solid one, that someone can see both sides without saying either is irrational.  In that case, with the way constitutional amendments are set up, there are and should be no changes.  This being the case, spending political capitol on the issue is wasteful.  On good days, even you recognize the situation.

Police response does depend on population density.  Given that key difference, it is hardly surprising that the two populations disagree.  The official nanny state representatives just cannot get there in time, so you need a private responsibly to take over where the distances involved are real.  Those who live in nice comfortable civilized places do not remember the realities of the situation.  It becomes real, sinks into ones bones, where one is.

The military is not a "privileged group." Neither are the national guard or the police. They work for the people as their sovereign. Our government does not recognize the validity of a militia whose purpose is to overthrow or resist the government, even if right-wing and some left-wing rebels do recognize such validity.

I never quite understood why people out on a farm with acres and acres between themselves and the next farmhouse, with any sizeable city 100-odd miles away, need to worry about burglars. And in any case, there are much better ways to protect yourself than guns. We've gone over all these ad infinitum.

I can understand a bit better why a ranch might be threatened by a coyote, etc. I think there are better ways than shooting the invading animal, but they may not be readily available to the average rancher. Some small minority of rural people might get benefit from hunting besides just as an unnecessary and destructive sport. And such sports certainly do not need Ar-15s and the like; that is not sporting at all. It is too bad that the red rural side is so uncompromising on the gun issue and live in the Fox News bubble on this. Compromises on issues like guns and abortions are possible, but the right-wing is too fanatical, fear-based and dogmatic to deal with these days. And that's partly because of the powerful organizations pushing the extreme right point of view for their own gain, and their ability to buy politicians. Too bad.

(11-29-2018, 07:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The military is not a "privileged group." Neither are the national guard or the police. They work for the people as their sovereign. Our government does not recognize the validity of a militia whose purpose is to overthrow or resist the government, even if right-wing and some left-wing rebels do recognize such validity.

One of the states put a justification phrase on their right of free speech.  It says in effect that as law makers have to speak freely to debate legislation, the People have a right of free speech.   Under the Jim Crow theory, legislatures are a group which are privileged by immunity from persecution of free speech.  They would be a privileged group.  Under the standard model, the People are a group of the whole, thus everybody has free speech.

No one believes in the in the Jim Crow interpretation of the text except those who wish to destroy human rights.  The whole purpose of the Jim Crow court was to destroy the rights of blacks.  They pretended to believe the founding fathers intended to create rights only for the government employees, not the People.  Rights are limited to government employees, be it legislators or militias.  That is an absurd interpretation.  I am a standard model individual rights guy.

Of course, there is a lot you have to read into the founding fathers, implied clauses like "This applies to white male Protestants only."  Our standards are much different today.  Most blues apply the equality rights to far more people these days, to females and minorities.  Some folks are not yet believers in equality, still strive towards prejudice.  I see them as in error, as advancing an old and wrong way of thinking.

(11-29-2018, 07:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I never quite understood why people out on a farm with acres and acres between themselves and the next farmhouse, with any sizeable city 100-odd miles away, need to worry about burglars. And in any case, there are much better ways to protect yourself than guns. We've gone over all these ad infinitum.

In an era of recreational drugs, everybody has to worry about burglars.  They are not limited to urban parts of the population, as you would know if you knew the culture.  The reds know red culture.

(11-29-2018, 07:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I can understand a bit better why a ranch might be threatened by a coyote, etc. I think there are better ways than shooting the invading animal, but they may not be readily available to the average rancher. Some small minority of rural people might get benefit from hunting besides just as an unnecessary and destructive sport. And such sports certainly do not need Ar-15s and the like; that is not sporting at all. It is too bad that the red rural side is so uncompromising on the gun issue and live in the Fox News bubble on this. Compromises on issues like guns and abortions are possible, but the right-wing is too fanatical, fear-based and dogmatic to deal with these days. And that's partly because of the powerful organizations pushing the extreme right point of view for their own gain, and their ability to buy politicians. Too bad.

And you are not fanatical, fear based and dogmatic? Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.  You are insisting they live by a culture based on how people live far away, a culture based on a far different population density.   You are set in your beliefs, totally unwilling to listen, locked into an adversarial way of thinking.  The result is at best dysfunctional.  One size does not fit all.  Wake up and grow up.

(11-30-2018, 02:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]One of the states put a justification phrase on their right of free speech.  It says in effect that as law makers have to speak freely to debate legislation, the People have a right of free speech.   Under the Jim Crow theory, legislatures are a group which are privileged by immunity from persecution of free speech.  They would be a privileged group.  Under the standard model, the People are a group of the whole, thus everybody has free speech.

No one believes in the in the Jim Crow interpretation of the text except those who wish to destroy human rights.  The whole purpose of the Jim Crow court was to destroy the rights of blacks.  They pretended to believe the founding fathers intended to create rights only for the government employees, not the People.  Rights are limited to government employees, be it legislators or militias.  That is an absurd interpretation.  I am a standard model individual rights guy.

Of course, there is a lot you have to read into the founding fathers, implied clauses like "This applies to white male Protestants only."  Our standards are much different today.  Most blues apply the equality rights to far more people these days, to females and minorities.  Some folks are not yet believers in equality, still strive towards prejudice.  I see them as in error, as advancing an old and wrong way of thinking.

I agree, and I know you think this has some relevance to the gun issue, and I don't agree that it does. I disagree that gun rights are rights of equality.

No, the fact that the 2nd amendment is long outdated is a fact that can't be obfuscated that way. We don't have legal citizens' militias. We have the military (and military students as David pointed out in a few places), police, and national guard. They work for the people, so the people need to make sure they obey the law and respect our rights.

Quote:In an era of recreational drugs, everybody has to worry about burglars.  They are not limited to urban parts of the population, as you would know if you knew the culture.  The reds know red culture.

Maybe they do know their culture better. The idea that isolated people need guns because the police are far away still makes no sense to me, drugs or no drugs, if they live in isolated locations to begin with. Burglars and drug gangs have much easier pickins in town. But, that's just how it appears to me.

If drugs are making crime worse in rural areas, then the solution is not for people there to be armed, but to end the war on drugs and start treating drug addicts instead, wherever they are.

Quote:And you are not fanatical, fear based and dogmatic? Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.  You are insisting they live by a culture based on how people live far away, a culture based on a far different population density.   You are set in your beliefs, totally unwilling to listen, locked into an adversarial way of thinking.  The result is at best dysfunctional.  One size does not fit all.  Wake up and grow up.

No I am not dogmatic, to the extent that I am willing to compromise with rural people and settle for what I can get regarding gun laws. The right-wing is dogmatic and ruthless on this issue, and on EVERY issue. They insist that urban people MUST have the permissive gun laws that suit rural culture, and are total slaves to the NRA. The Left is mostly not as dogmatic and uncompromising, although some of the Bernie vs. Hillary people have become more so. That's just the political landscape of our time.

So, no, none of what you say is true. Same advice applies to you, I'm afraid. Yes, I am very liberal and set in a lot of my views, but like Obama said, I don't have to demand perfection, I can settle for better. The Parkland students recommend what I recommend, so I am not more dogmatic or fanatical than they when it comes to AR-15s. To insist that weapons of war be taken off our streets does not make me fanatical or dogmatic, even if I don't agree with your constitutional reasoning.

All people on the internet tend to be stubborn in their views; I am not more so than others. So insulting people who have different views is not necessarily warranted, Bob.

(11-29-2018, 07:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]… I never quite understood why people out on a farm with acres and acres between themselves and the next farmhouse, with any sizeable city 100-odd miles away, need to worry about burglars. And in any case, there are much better ways to protect yourself than guns. We've gone over all these ad infinitum.

I'll have to disagree here.  Living in the country is not a panacea, and police response times are long and tenuous.  So having a firearm in the house isn't unreasonable.  What is unreasonable is the reverse situation, where those rural folks demand that urban folks should not be allowed to limit gun ownership in any way, because it may effect them ever so slightly.  

If we can get to universal background checks and, eventually, licensing, registration and mandatory liability insurance, that may be enough. Good luck on that!

Let's state the obvious: the best defense of property is that people recognize the virtue of property ownership by people other than themselves. Socialism has little appeal unless the social order fosters arrogance, cruelty, and selfishness by economic elites. Such says as much about the moral culture as about the structure of capitalism. America's heirs and executive elite are typically awful, and their idea of the capitalist ideal is that others suffer for their greed while recognizing their exploiters as benefactors. Bad behavior by the proletariat isn't so damaging, and destructive self-indulgence by workers usually has quick and unpleasant consequences for the workers. The elites can get away with far more harm to others because others endure the burden and the elites have insulation from the effects. Shamans, big landowners, generalissimos, plutocrats, and executives are all prone to the same greed and are as capable of exploiting the masses -- even in an ostensibly 'classless' society. If the economic leaders have some moral compass, then they won't foster any proletarian revolutions.

Basically, is Marx right? Such is the choice of owners and managers in America or elsewhere.

Property crime is either the result of criminal enterprises finding ways of stealing on a grand scale or poor people seeing what someone else has earned through honest toil (often by someone also poor) and taking it -- or selling the stolen goods to fund a drug habit. One contributor to the fall of property crime as burglaries for larceny is that electronic goodies became much less expensive. Who is going to steal a DVD player that retails for $25 at "Wally World" and fence it for $5 while taking the risk of being sent to prison for ten years? I remember when VHS players were for sale for as much as $2000, and those tempted criminals to steal them. Identity theft allows some clever crooks to indulge in consumerism to which they are not entitled, but the banking system is getting increasingly clever at thwarting such. I think of an old ad in which a credit-card holder who is an elderly male has a voice-over by some young woman who has purchased a bunch of stuff that he would never buy, like the $200 bustier that she 'just had to have' -- so she bought it on a credit card whose data she stole from him. "Invasion of the Data Grabbers"?

An even more odious crime, rape, seems to be done by creeps who believe that they are entitled to sex with a complete stranger because the creeps are 'horny'. If men respected women and girls, then they would not do that crime. Oh, maybe she wants to be faithful to her husband? That is sexual freedom in itself.

Deterrents, whether firearms, bear traps, or dogs, are vastly inferior to the respect of personal and property rights. It is up to the economic leadership to inculcate such respect, and it begins with them showing respect for workers and customers.

(11-30-2018, 08:38 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-29-2018, 07:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]… I never quite understood why people out on a farm with acres and acres between themselves and the next farmhouse, with any sizeable city 100-odd miles away, need to worry about burglars. And in any case, there are much better ways to protect yourself than guns. We've gone over all these ad infinitum.

I'll have to disagree here.  Living in the country is not a panacea, and police response times are long and tenuous.  So having a firearm in the house isn't unreasonable.  What is unreasonable is the reverse situation, where those rural folks demand that urban folks should not be allowed to limit gun ownership in any way, because it may effect them ever so slightly.  

If we can get to universal background checks and, eventually, licensing, registration and mandatory liability insurance, that may be enough.  Good luck on that!

You and Bob may be right on that, but it still makes no sense to me. Burglars have less access to houses way out in the country where response times are long. But if a compromise can be worked out between rural and urban needs, that's fine. Unfortunately the right wing doesn't want that.

(11-30-2018, 10:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Let's state the obvious: the best defense of property is that people recognize the virtue of property ownership by people other than themselves. Socialism has little appeal unless the social order fosters arrogance, cruelty, and selfishness by economic elites. Such says as much about the moral culture as about the structure of capitalism. America's heirs and executive elite are typically awful, and their idea of the capitalist ideal is that others suffer for their greed while recognizing their exploiters as benefactors.  Bad behavior by the proletariat isn't so damaging, and destructive self-indulgence by workers usually has quick and unpleasant consequences for the workers. The elites can get away with far more harm to others because others endure the burden and the elites have insulation from the effects. Shamans, big landowners, generalissimos, plutocrats, and executives are all prone to the same greed and are as capable of exploiting the masses -- even in an ostensibly 'classless' society. If the economic leaders have some moral compass, then they won't foster any proletarian revolutions.

Basically, is Marx right? Such is the choice of owners and managers in America or elsewhere.  

Property crime is either the result of criminal enterprises finding ways of stealing on a grand scale or poor people seeing what someone else has earned through honest toil (often by someone also poor) and taking it -- or selling the stolen goods to fund a drug habit. One contributor to the fall of property crime as burglaries for larceny is that electronic goodies became much less expensive. Who is going to steal a DVD player that retails for $25 at "Wally World" and fence it for $5 while taking the risk of being sent to prison for ten years? I remember when VHS players were for sale for as much as $2000, and those tempted criminals to steal them. Identity theft allows some clever crooks to indulge in consumerism to which they are not entitled, but the banking system is getting increasingly clever at thwarting such.  I think of an old ad in which a credit-card holder who is an elderly male has a voice-over by some young woman who has purchased a bunch of stuff that he would never buy, like the $200 bustier that she 'just had to have' -- so she bought it on a credit card whose data she stole from him. "Invasion of the Data Grabbers"?

An even more odious crime, rape, seems to be done by creeps who believe that they are entitled to sex with a complete stranger because the creeps are 'horny'. If men respected women and girls, then they would not do that crime. Oh, maybe she wants to be faithful to her husband? That is sexual freedom in itself.

Deterrents, whether firearms, bear traps, or dogs, are vastly inferior to the respect of personal and property rights. It is up to the economic leadership to inculcate such respect, and it begins with them showing respect for workers and customers.

Well, if you disrespect employees and customers, you're not going to be in business long unless you're a primary contributor to a socialist system or a major contributor/ financial supporter of the Democratic party.

(11-30-2018, 03:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]No I am not dogmatic, to the extent that I am willing to compromise with rural people and settle for what I can get regarding gun laws. The right-wing is dogmatic and ruthless on this issue, and on EVERY issue. They insist that urban people MUST have the permissive gun laws that suit rural culture, and are total slaves to the NRA. The Left is mostly not as dogmatic and uncompromising, although some of the Bernie vs. Hillary people have become more so. That's just the political landscape of our time.

So, no, none of what you say is true. Same advice applies to you, I'm afraid. Yes, I am very liberal and set in a lot of my views, but like Obama said, I don't have to demand perfection, I can settle for better. The Parkland students recommend what I recommend, so I am not more dogmatic or fanatical than they when it comes to AR-15s. To insist that weapons of war be taken off our streets does not make me fanatical or dogmatic, even if I don't agree with your constitutional reasoning.

All people on the internet tend to be stubborn in their views; I am not more so than others. So insulting people who have different views is not necessarily warranted, Bob.

Eric, are you familiar with the old American adage/ golden rule of "to each their own". I assume that you're not or you don't place enough value on it to recognize it or protect it. Eric, you have to be careful because a serious run in with someone like me would not be favorable to someone like you. As I've mentioned before, I will watch as you're being beaten to death and not lift a finger or squeeze a trigger despite having a weapon with the capability and the skill to use it effectively for the purpose of your defense as well as my own. Do idiot blues deserve to live? Do idiot blues deserve risking lives to save? I don't think so. However, I'm sure that there are many blue who would disagree with me and my view of blues like yourself. Healthcare cost won the House and you're still stuck on gun control.

It seems to me that we have an old compromise, and a way to change it, and the old compromise is called the Constitution.  It favors the old.  Blue fanatics are not willing to abide by it.  They keep moving the conversation here and elsewhere to prohibition, which hasn't worked, to infringement, when the old compromise specifically forbids infringement.  The response has been for the red to also refuse compromise, and to stick to the old compromise, which favors them and which the blue do not have the numbers to change.

I don't see that as changing soon, and on his good days neither does Eric.  On bad days, he and others spend valuable political capitol anyway.

I try to shift the conversation to ways of changing things for the blue that do not involve breaking the Constitution, but the blue fanatics keep not taking these steps and keep pushing breaking the Constitution.  The red fanatics seeing this have no reason to shift away from the old compromise.

Sports media no longer shows streakers, no longer gratifies one type of unlawful attention seeker.  News media could do the same, not gratify those seeking publicity through violence.  We could do much more to break the media's place in today's spiral of violence.

The Constitution as interpreted does not guarantee the right to own or carry weapons to those questionably sane.  It does, however, guarantee due process.  If the blue want prohibition in that area, they should seek to define and implement a due process.  That much could be and perhaps should be done.

That does not mean that Prohibition is necessarily going to succeed.  Historically, it hasn't.

But the blue fanatics will not move to doing what they can within the Constitution to stop the bloodshed.  They insist on focusing the conversation on breaking it.  The blood, it seems, is on them.

(11-30-2018, 11:59 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me that we have an old compromise, and a way to change it, and the old compromise is called the Constitution.  It favors the old.  Blue fanatics are not willing to abide by it.  They keep moving the conversation here and elsewhere to prohibition, which hasn't worked, to infringement, when the old compromise specifically forbids infringement.  The response has been for the red to also refuse compromise, and to stick to the old compromise, which favors them and which the blue do not have the numbers to change.

I don't see that as changing soon, and on his good days neither does Eric.  On bad days, he and others spend valuable political capitol anyway.

The Second Amendment came into existence in the time of flintlock muskets, and not Gatling guns or Katyusha rockets. Original intent might be hard to determine.

Quote:I try to shift the conversation to ways of changing things for the blue that do not involve breaking the Constitution, but the blue fanatics keep not taking these steps and keep pushing breaking the Constitution.  The red fanatics seeing this have no reason to shift away from the old compromise.

Do people have a right to keep weapons that have use only in crime or for military purposes? Is it legal to possess a hand grenade? Sarin gas? Semtex, the odorless form of an infamous plastic explosive that terrorists used?

Quote:Sports media no longer shows streakers, no longer gratifies one type of unlawful attention seeker.  News media could do the same, not gratify those seeking publicity through violence.  We could do much more to break the media's place in today's spiral of violence.

Streakers got stale. People such as Morganna known to go onto playing fields got blacklisted. (OK, she 'retired' from that activity).

Quote:The Constitution as interpreted does not guarantee the right to own or carry weapons to those questionably sane.  It does, however, guarantee due process.  If the blue want prohibition in that area, they should seek to define and implement a due process.  That much could be and perhaps should be done.

People with dangerous mental conditions should not be allowed to have any sort of firearm.

Quote:That does not mean that Prohibition is necessarily going to succeed.  Historically, it hasn't.

Black markets and gray markets will emerge with anything outlawed, heavily restricted, or whose price is fixed far above or below market.  Think of currency: to really get some things done in some countries, one needs dollars.

Quote:But the blue fanatics will not move to doing what they can within the Constitution to stop the bloodshed.  They insist on focusing the conversation on breaking it.  The blood, it seems, is on them.

Other countries have rigid laws against the possession of firearms without any loss of civil liberties. Places with social breakdown are full of guns.

(12-01-2018, 01:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Original intent might be hard to determine.

In this case it is not.  The original intent is crystal clear if the issue is researched.

(12-01-2018, 01:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]People with dangerous mental conditions should not be allowed to have any sort of firearm.

Agreed.

(12-01-2018, 01:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Places with social breakdown are full of guns.

Other countries which do not have such rigid laws do not.  The above does not take the blood off the hands of the blue fanatics.

(11-30-2018, 11:59 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me that we have an old compromise, and a way to change it, and the old compromise is called the Constitution.  It favors the old.  Blue fanatics are not willing to abide by it.  They keep moving the conversation here and elsewhere to prohibition, which hasn't worked, to infringement, when the old compromise specifically forbids infringement.  The response has been for the red to also refuse compromise, and to stick to the old compromise, which favors them and which the blue do not have the numbers to change.

I don't see that as changing soon, and on his good days neither does Eric.  On bad days, he and others spend valuable political capitol anyway.

I try to shift the conversation to ways of changing things for the blue that do not involve breaking the Constitution, but the blue fanatics keep not taking these steps and keep pushing breaking the Constitution.  The red fanatics seeing this have no reason to shift away from the old compromise.

Sports media no longer shows streakers, no longer gratifies one type of unlawful attention seeker.  News media could do the same, not gratify those seeking publicity through violence.  We could do much more to break the media's place in today's spiral of violence.

The Constitution as interpreted does not guarantee the right to own or carry weapons to those questionably sane.  It does, however, guarantee due process.  If the blue want prohibition in that area, they should seek to define and implement a due process.  That much could be and perhaps should be done.

That does not mean that Prohibition is necessarily going to succeed.  Historically, it hasn't.

But the blue fanatics will not move to doing what they can within the Constitution to stop the bloodshed.  They insist on focusing the conversation on breaking it.  The blood, it seems, is on them.

The blood is entirely on the hands of the red fanatics and the gun lobby. It is their blood money that the red politicians pay attention to. The blue side has always been willing to pass what laws can be passed, however watered down. If you were aware of politics today, not just those of 240 years ago, you would know this. I don't know how what blues are doing now could be any MORE "due process."

Your use of the word prohibition as usual is obfuscating. In Prohibition, it was illegal to own liquor as well as to make it or even drink it. Places selling it had to have people at the door let you in through a peep hole ("speakeasies"). This has been largely true of our drug laws as well. Banning military assault rifles for civilian use only extends to banning their sale, not their possession, and it does not shut down gun stores. There is no proposal to confiscate these weapons of war, let alone all the handguns and rifles.

And by the way statistics are clear that the assault weapons ban of 1994 reduced mass shootings 37%, but they have gone way up since its unnecessary expiration in 2004. Opinions differ on this, according to what I read. But the articles not supporting this stat did not cite it, but evaded it, while pointing out various provisos and exceptions. This article makes the case clearly regarding mass shootings. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tu...40352.html



Some of us, I have no idea how many, would be in favor of a gunless society. I would. Most developed countries are already virtually gunless. The United States, especially in its red states and counties, has a sick obsession with guns, to its severe detriment. However, the question is how to get there. Forced confiscation of all guns now would lead to violence. That would have the opposite effect to the intention of the law. Some day, if and when American society reaches consensus, which is way more than majority vote, it might work. Yes it would take repeal of the long, long outdated 2nd Amendment. That would take passage in 3/4 of the states. Meanwhile gun possession has been declining, even as gun laws have gotten more permissive thanks to the NRA and red-state politics.

"Assault weapons bans reduced the number of school shooting victims by 54.4 percent," Mark Gius of Quinnipiac University writes in the journal Applied Economics Letters. "All other gun-control laws—concealed-carry laws, private-sale background checks, and federal dealer background checks—had no statistically significant effect on school shootings."

Gius has received positive attention from conservative media for previous studies finding concealed-carry laws and assault weapons bans do not have a significant effect on a state's gun-related murder rate. (In many states, handguns are responsible for far more deaths than assault rifles.)


But his subsequent research shows mass shootings are a different matter.

In a 2014 study that analyzed data covering the years 1982 to 2011, he found "both state and federal assault weapon bans have statistically significant and negative effects on mass shooting fatalities."

In addition, he found the federal ban, which was in place from 1994 to 2004, was linked to fewer injuries from mass shootings. State-level bans were not, which suggests they are less effective in preventing harm (not surprisingly, since determined shooters can easily bring such weapons across state lines).

Gius' 2017 study focused exclusively on school shootings. Focusing on the years 1990 to 2014, he examined the effect of the federal assault weapons ban, federal background checks for gun purchases from dealers (in effect from 1994), and three types of state-level laws: assault weapons bans, "concealed carry" laws, and background checks for gun sales made by one individual to another individual.

"The only gun control measure that had a statistically significant effect on the number of school shooting victims was the assault weapons ban," he writes. "When the assault weapons ban, state or federal, was in effect, the number of school shooting victims was 54.4 percent less than (when it was not in effect)."

https://psmag.com/news/assault-weapons-b...ing-deaths

(11-30-2018, 10:49 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-30-2018, 03:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]No I am not dogmatic, to the extent that I am willing to compromise with rural people and settle for what I can get regarding gun laws. The right-wing is dogmatic and ruthless on this issue, and on EVERY issue. They insist that urban people MUST have the permissive gun laws that suit rural culture, and are total slaves to the NRA. The Left is mostly not as dogmatic and uncompromising, although some of the Bernie vs. Hillary people have become more so. That's just the political landscape of our time.

So, no, none of what you say is true. Same advice applies to you, I'm afraid. Yes, I am very liberal and set in a lot of my views, but like Obama said, I don't have to demand perfection, I can settle for better. The Parkland students recommend what I recommend, so I am not more dogmatic or fanatical than they when it comes to AR-15s. To insist that weapons of war be taken off our streets does not make me fanatical or dogmatic, even if I don't agree with your constitutional reasoning.

All people on the internet tend to be stubborn in their views; I am not more so than others. So insulting people who have different views is not necessarily warranted, Bob.

Eric, are you familiar with the old American adage/ golden rule of "to  each their own". I assume that you're not or you don't place enough value on it to recognize it or  protect it. Eric, you have to be careful because a serious run in with someone like me would not be favorable to someone like you. As I've mentioned before, I will watch as you're being beaten to death and not lift a finger or squeeze a trigger despite having a weapon with the capability and the skill to use it effectively for the purpose of your defense as well as my own. Do idiot blues deserve to live? Do idiot blues deserve risking lives to save? I don't think so. However, I'm sure that there are many blue who would disagree with me and my view of blues like yourself. Healthcare cost won the House and you're still stuck on gun control.

Fortunately, I don't live in a red state or county. My county voted 72% for Hillary Clinton and only 22% for Donald Trump; the rest going for Johnson and Stein. I don't even remember ever even seeing a gun. I have some Republican neighbors, but I have no evidence that they have guns. I have no evidence that the Republicans in my neighborhood are as fanatic and mean as you say that you are, with one possible exception. I have no fear that someone who opposes my views on gun control is going to shoot me or beat me up because of my views. I live in a more civilized place than you do.