Debate about Gun Control

[Copperfield]

(08-18-2016, 11:43 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 09:48 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

1. Nice gun there.
2. I see a nicotine delivery device with it.   [ A stogie with matching stogie cutter. ]
3. I agree that NZ's gun laws are a bureaucratic rat's maze. Why would anyone need to jot down their employer on a firearms license?  I also agree the fees are utterly stupid.  With that said, one look at the BATF site makes NZ look sane.
4. I think Arizona has the right idea.  "If you [Federal Government" wants to enforce gun laws, have at it, but we're not gonna help.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigatio...ws-n185326

Thanks. It was the first fire firearm I ever purchased with my own money, many moons ago (back in the days when you still had to order such specialty items from catalogs instead of the interwebs). My first of three Smith and Wessons. I've learned more about shooting and accuracy from that weapon than any other firearm. The recoil requires consciousness, focus and a relaxed hand to control.

There is a bottle of locally distilled, 150+ year old (the recipe, not the bottle itself), sailor's rum back there too (marked as being from the very 1st batch - only to be opened at the end of the world). I wanted to make sure the photo was fully ATF compliant.

The ATF is great for demonstrating just how little Americans understand the system they live under and how the laws they live under are written and function. Very little of the laws/regulations that the ATF enforces were ever actually voted on by the people or their representatives. Instead, they were written by bureaucrats within the department and subject to change without notice. That's how the US works. Your average person doesn't actually have any say in the laws they live under. Excessively vague frameworks are written by politicians on the take with details filled out by bureaucrats on the take after thorough vetting by all involved political parties, lobbies and business interests (you guessed it, all on the take). In essence this is what infamous political skank Nancy Pelosi was referring to with her "we have to pass it to see what is in it" comment. These clowns don't even write law anymore. They have delegated that responsibility to monied interests along with all of the rest. In the practical sense, the ATF is a useless organization. As a teaching tool however, they are priceless.

As an example, the previously mentioned 922® ATF regulation. It was meant, more or less, as a way to ban foreign rifles like the AK-47. But as with all laws, any attempt to definitively declare exactly what is illegal means that anything not specifically declared is also by definition, perfect legal. Under this law a 100% Russian (or Bulgarian, or Chinese) AK-47 would be illegal. So instead companies just import the receiver, bolt and barrel (you know, the actual gun), slap on enough American-made cosmetics for ATF compliance purposes and put it out on the sales floor. Hence, while my Saiga 12 is according to Hoyle American-Made, it still has the official Izhvesk factory stamp on the receiver. The regulation is so ridiculous that to my knowledge, no one has ever been prosecuted for breaking it. I'm sure they would be hard pressed even making a court case out of it.

[Copperfield]

(08-20-2016, 12:48 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

Eric The Green Wrote:Celebrating that gun as though it were "nice," shows ammosexual tendencies.

That's just ridiculous.  Ascribing sex to everything makes no sense.  "Nice" means lots of stuff. Wrt Copperfield's gun, it's nice because of the engineering.  Didn't you notice the "finger notches" or whatever they're called.  Those make the gun grip better. The gun is a revolver / 6- shooter type.

It's difficult for non-tool-users/non-makers like Eric to understand or appreciate the level of work that goes into creating tools. You can't really blame it on him really. It's his upbringing, local culture and fear of the world outside of his gates that handicaps him. In short, he never got out enough as a child. Never hayed a field, planted and garden, fed or watered a cow or pretended a stick was a sword.

[Copperfield]

(08-22-2016, 03:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-21-2016, 01:26 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: The use of ad-homs is just tacky.  After all they are the resort of those who have already lost the argument.

I don't know what else can explain the fascination with guns, that would make people post such pictures, or buy such foolish and deadly arguments as gun proponents do, or hang on so tightly against any regulation. "From my dead cold hands" cries the ammosexual, as if any gun regulation is going to take Heston's shotgun away from him. Truly silly, and truly sick.

Notice that you saw (and commented on) the firearms and not the sunset view? A firearm is one of many tools the wife and I brought to camp. My trusty knife and tomahawk made the trip too along with all of my cooking gear and Swedish Fire Steel (never leave home without it) even though we never needed it. Better to be prepared than not. While I was up at camp, I never once even thought about my revolver. I never had reason to. It's only a tool and like all tools, has specific purposes. Sometimes those purposes arise, sometimes they don't.

We did do a lot of shooting though. We woke up for sunrise:







Our first morning there ended up being perfect. Temperature was mid-40's. Took several hours for the fog to burn off the water.



We had coffee with one of the local fisherman who was also out early.





I spent the second day photographing some spectacular hummingbird dogfights (Speaking of sexual things, I do like hummers. Get it?   ).





I've got hundreds of these. You should get out of the house more Eric. You might find yourself not thinking about politics 24/7.

[Eric the Green]

That's nice; beautiful. I have not been out in "nature" enough lately, that's true. Except running beside our local ponds and reservoirs.

Here's a nice view:


I had one of those feeders! It was exactly the same as in your picture. I didn't keep it loaded with sugar all the time though.

I do have other interests besides politics; of course. Anyone who has read my posts knows that. Talk about obvious.

Of course, these days the outdoors is very much on the political chopping block. It has been for at least a century anyway, but now more than ever. It could not be any clearer which political parties are in favor of keeping Nature healthy, and which ones aren't. I have posted the stats on that ad infinitum.

I understand why outdoors rural people might feel they need a gun. Gun control advocates usually compromise on this; I don't know any of them now who don't, as a matter of fact. Those who feel they need military weapons to shoot animals, though, should stay home, and preferably stay in the city where they won't hurt other living beings besides humans, anyway (assuming they are permitted to have them at all).

[Eric the Green]

(08-24-2016, 06:48 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(08-20-2016, 12:48 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

Eric The Green Wrote:Celebrating that gun as though it were "nice," shows ammosexual tendencies.

That's just ridiculous.  Ascribing sex to everything makes no sense.  "Nice" means lots of stuff. Wrt Copperfield's gun, it's nice because of the engineering.  Didn't you notice the "finger notches" or whatever they're called.  Those make the gun grip better. The gun is a revolver / 6- shooter type.

It's difficult for non-tool-users/non-makers like Eric to understand or appreciate the level of work that goes into creating tools. You can't really blame it on him really. It's his upbringing, local culture and fear of the world outside of his gates that handicaps him. In short, he never got out enough as a child. Never hayed a field, planted a garden, fed or watered a cow or pretended a stick was a sword.

Guns aren't tools; they are weapons.

You are emulating Classic Xer. Making those assumptions might not work. It's true I have never worked on a farm. My Dad is from a mid-west farming family though; five generations in the same town, but only the middle one of them from birth to death.

[Copperfield]

(08-24-2016, 08:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's nice; beautiful. I have not been out in "nature" enough lately, that's true.

I had one of those feeders! It was exactly the same as in your picture. I didn't keep it loaded with sugar all the time though.

I do have other interests besides politics; of course. Anyone who has read my posts knows that. Talk about obvious.

Of course, these days the outdoors is very much on the political chopping block. It has been for at least a century anyway, but now more than ever. It could not be any clearer which political parties are in favor of keeping Nature healthy, and which ones aren't. I have posted the stats on that ad infinitum.

Maybe on your side of the country. Not so much in mine. Like I said, get out more.

(08-24-2016, 08:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I understand why outdoors rural people might feel they need a gun. Gun control advocates usually compromise on this; I don't know any of them now who don't, as a matter of fact. Those who feel they need military weapons to shoot animals, though, should stay home, and preferably stay in the city where they won't hurt other living beings besides humans, anyway (assuming they are permitted to have them at all).

Look, I know you've never shot anything in your life. I know you can't define the difference between what are military and non-military weapons (because there is no such thing). I know you enjoy heaping more power onto the already powerful. I get it. I really do. Problem is, none of your inexperience and not-knowing makes you right in the end. It just makes you... Old and powerless.

Oh and P.S. The difference between the picture of your pond and mine? Mine has a year-round population of 0 .

[Copperfield]

(08-24-2016, 08:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-24-2016, 06:48 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(08-20-2016, 12:48 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

Eric The Green Wrote:Celebrating that gun as though it were "nice," shows ammosexual tendencies.

That's just ridiculous.  Ascribing sex to everything makes no sense.  "Nice" means lots of stuff. Wrt Copperfield's gun, it's nice because of the engineering.  Didn't you notice the "finger notches" or whatever they're called.  Those make the gun grip better. The gun is a revolver / 6- shooter type.

It's difficult for non-tool-users/non-makers like Eric to understand or appreciate the level of work that goes into creating tools. You can't really blame it on him really. It's his upbringing, local culture and fear of the world outside of his gates that handicaps him. In short, he never got out enough as a child. Never hayed a field, planted a garden, fed or watered a cow or pretended a stick was a sword.

Guns aren't tools; they are weapons.

You are emulating Classic Xer. Making those assumptions might not work. It's true I have never worked on a farm. My Dad is from a mid-west farming family though; five generations in the same town, but only the middle one of them from birth to death.

Of course they are tools. One needs only read the definition of the word. Many tools can be weapons (knife, axe, hammer, sword, bow, etc.).

My mom is from the mid-west. That fact is as irrelevant as a million other bits of trivia about her as far as contact with the outside world is concerned. But then, I did always take after dad more than her.

[Odin]

(08-24-2016, 07:17 PM)Copperfield Wrote: Notice that you saw (and commented on) the firearms and not the sunset view? A firearm is one of many tools the wife and I brought to camp. My trusty knife and tomahawk made the trip too along with all of my cooking gear and Swedish Fire Steel (never leave home without it) even though we never needed it. Better to be prepared than not. While I was up at camp, I never once even thought about my revolver. I never had reason to. It's only a tool and like all tools, has specific purposes. Sometimes those purposes arise, sometimes they don't.

We did do a lot of shooting though. We woke up for sunrise:







Our first morning there ended up being perfect. Temperature was mid-40's. Took several hours for the fog to burn off the water.



We had coffee with one of the local fisherman who was also out early.





I spent the second day photographing some spectacular hummingbird dogfights (Speaking of sexual things, I do like hummers. Get it?   ).





I've got hundreds of these. You should get out of the house more Eric. You might find yourself not thinking about politics 24/7.

Oh goodness, where the hell is that? It's beautiful!

[Eric the Green]

I think he's in Maine, but he probably doesn't want to say.

[Eric the Green]

(08-24-2016, 09:02 PM)Copperfield Wrote: Maybe on your side of the country. Not so much in mine. Like I said, get out more.

No, nationally.

(08-24-2016, 08:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Look, I know you've never shot anything in your life. I know you can't define the difference between what are military and non-military weapons (because there is no such thing). I know you enjoy heaping more power onto the already powerful. I get it. I really do. Problem is, none of your inexperience and not-knowing makes you right in the end. It just makes you... Old and powerless.

I can fortunately and proudly say I've never shot anything in my life, yes. Call me Green.

Those who say there's no difference between those two kinds of weapons are shooting in the dark. Not up for debate.

It's the parties with which you tend to align (although you don't align with either strictly speaking) who are dedicated to promoting the interests of the powerful (and wealth is power). That would be the Republicans and Libertarians.

Those of my viewpoint understand that we all have a lot of untapped power. The power of the Great Spirit is always within me. Materialists such as yourself, however, have no concept of this. My inexperience with guns has no relevance. Guns do not provide any power; they are a substitute for power, employed by those who do not know their own power.

Quote:Oh and P.S. The difference between the picture of your pond and mine? Mine has a year-round population of 0 .

No question. In my view that I posted, the trees and mountains look empty of urbanity, but it's all around it. But, that's partly because of our politics, which has insisted on protecting our green foothills.

[Copperfield]

(08-26-2016, 01:17 PM)Odin Wrote:

(08-24-2016, 07:17 PM)Copperfield Wrote: Notice that you saw (and commented on) the firearms and not the sunset view? A firearm is one of many tools the wife and I brought to camp. My trusty knife and tomahawk made the trip too along with all of my cooking gear and Swedish Fire Steel (never leave home without it) even though we never needed it. Better to be prepared than not. While I was up at camp, I never once even thought about my revolver. I never had reason to. It's only a tool and like all tools, has specific purposes. Sometimes those purposes arise, sometimes they don't.

We did do a lot of shooting though. We woke up for sunrise:

.................

I've got hundreds of these. You should get out of the house more Eric. You might find yourself not thinking about politics 24/7.

Oh goodness, where the hell is that? It's beautiful!

Northern New England, near the Canadian border. In fact I could have easily hiked across the border unnoticed within 30 minutes. No walls up there. Not even organized townships up there.

[Copperfield]

(08-26-2016, 10:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think he's in Maine, but he probably doesn't want to say.

You should learn to cherish anonymity. Did you know that, thanks to the FCC, your home address is quite easy to find with the simple Google search?

[Copperfield]

(08-26-2016, 11:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-24-2016, 09:02 PM)Copperfield Wrote: Maybe on your side of the country. Not so much in mine. Like I said, get out more.

No, nationally.

(08-24-2016, 08:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Look, I know you've never shot anything in your life. I know you can't define the difference between what are military and non-military weapons (because there is no such thing). I know you enjoy heaping more power onto the already powerful. I get it. I really do. Problem is, none of your inexperience and not-knowing makes you right in the end. It just makes you... Old and powerless.

I can fortunately and proudly say I've never shot anything in my life, yes. Call me Green.

Those who say there's no difference between those two kinds of weapons are shooting in the dark. Not up for debate.

It's the parties with which you tend to align (although you don't align with either strictly speaking) who are dedicated to promoting the interests of the powerful (and wealth is power). That would be the Republicans and Libertarians.

Those of my viewpoint understand that we all have a lot of untapped power. The power of the Great Spirit is always within me. Materialists such as yourself, however, have no concept of this. My inexperience with guns has no relevance. Guns do not provide any power; they are a substitute for power, employed by those who do not know their own power.

Quote:Oh and P.S. The difference between the picture of your pond and mine? Mine has a year-round population of 0 .

No question. In my view that I posted, the trees and mountains look empty of urbanity, but it's all around it. But, that's partly because of our politics, which has insisted on protecting our green foothills.

Nah, not here. Most of the wilderness is actually privately owned yet still open to everyone. Certainly there is the occasional environmental tiff but the biggest threat to the wilderness here is from tourism (mostly from those provincialist blues in New York and Massachusetts). They tend to be the ones who litter, destroy and treat nature as a shiny trinket to be consumed. Basically wealthy urbanites who have never seen a tree outside of a local park. Much like you, they don't really understand nature. They just buy it for a few weeks each year.

Power *chuckle*

I could drop you off in wild places where you wouldn't make it back to civilization alive. You don't understand power or nature. You certainly aren't ready for the responsibility that comes with it. You've barely even left home in your lifetime.

Your politics have chained you to the to the arrogant notion of wilderness as just another human resource to be controlled rather than understood and embracing your connection to it. That's a big part of the problem. As I've often said, when you folks run out of water don't bother coming east.

[Eric the Green]

(08-30-2016, 03:37 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(08-26-2016, 11:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-24-2016, 09:02 PM)Copperfield Wrote: Maybe on your side of the country. Not so much in mine. Like I said, get out more.

No, nationally.

(08-24-2016, 08:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Look, I know you've never shot anything in your life. I know you can't define the difference between what are military and non-military weapons (because there is no such thing). I know you enjoy heaping more power onto the already powerful. I get it. I really do. Problem is, none of your inexperience and not-knowing makes you right in the end. It just makes you... Old and powerless.

I can fortunately and proudly say I've never shot anything in my life, yes. Call me Green.

Those who say there's no difference between those two kinds of weapons are shooting in the dark. Not up for debate.

It's the parties with which you tend to align (although you don't align with either strictly speaking) who are dedicated to promoting the interests of the powerful (and wealth is power). That would be the Republicans and Libertarians.

Those of my viewpoint understand that we all have a lot of untapped power. The power of the Great Spirit is always within me. Materialists such as yourself, however, have no concept of this. My inexperience with guns has no relevance. Guns do not provide any power; they are a substitute for power, employed by those who do not know their own power.

Quote:Oh and P.S. The difference between the picture of your pond and mine? Mine has a year-round population of 0 .

No question. In my view that I posted, the trees and mountains look empty of urbanity, but it's all around it. But, that's partly because of our politics, which has insisted on protecting our green foothills.

Nah, not here. Most of the wilderness is actually privately owned yet still open to everyone. Certainly there is the occasional environmental tiff but the biggest threat to the wilderness here is from tourism (mostly from those provincialist blues in New York and Massachusetts). They tend to be the ones who litter, destroy and treat nature as a shiny trinket to be consumed. Basically wealthy urbanites who have never seen a tree outside of a local park. Much like you, they don't really understand nature. They just buy it for a few weeks each year.

Power *chuckle*

What don't I understand about Nature? That I need to bring a gun? chuckle chuckle.

Quote:I could drop you off in wild places where you wouldn't make it back to civilization alive. You don't understand power or nature. You certainly aren't ready for the responsibility that comes with it. You've barely even left home in your lifetime.

Maybe; maybe not. How would you know?

Quote:Your politics have chained you to the to the arrogant notion of wilderness as just another human resource to be controlled rather than understood and embracing your connection to it. That's a big part of the problem. As I've often said, when you folks run out of water don't bother coming east.

My politics has not caused me to have a view about Nature; Nature causes me to have a view about politics. I know that your anarchist, pro-business philosophy is the greatest threat to Nature that exists. It's the corporate world that looks at Nature as another human resource to be controlled; not green, semi-hippies like me.

[Eric the Green]

(08-30-2016, 03:14 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(08-26-2016, 10:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think he's in Maine, but he probably doesn't want to say.

You should learn to cherish anonymity. Did you know that, thanks to the FCC, your home address is quite easy to find with the simple Google search?

I'm not too worried about who might find me. Should I be??

[Anthony '58]

But maybe we should start worrying about mass emigration?

I have read more than one blog by an African-American saying that (s)he wouldn't care if (s)he ever saw another white face as long as (s)he lived - and is seriously considering emigrating to Africa, thereby fulfilling the wet dream of every white supremacist for the past 150 years.

Me, I can easily envision, within my lifetime, millions of black ex-patriates wearing dashikis, fluent in Hausa or some other African language (and teaching their children this language, exclusively), having converted to Islam - and joining the leftist political party in their newly-adopted country.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-01-2016, 09:51 AM)Anthony Wrote: But maybe we should start worrying about mass emigration?

I have read more than one blog by an African-American saying that (s)he wouldn't care if (s)he ever saw another white face as long as (s)he lived - and is seriously considering emigrating to Africa, thereby fulfilling the wet dream of every white supremacist for the past 150 years.

Me, I can easily envision, within my lifetime, millions of black ex-patriates wearing dashikis, fluent in Hausa or some other African language (and teaching their children this language, exclusively), having converted to Islam - and joining the leftist political party in their newly-adopted country.

Does this count as a wet dream?  

[Cynic Hero '86]

The Black community has become much more culturally western over the last couple generations. Only in the deepest inner city ghettos has a separatist subculture really survived. As for white supremacists, I think they would be much more hostile to a Muslim black community than they would be to a christian one. Trump is much more anti-mexican and anti-immigrant anyway, so a hispanic exodus to mexico would be far more likely than any black emigration.

[Anthony '58]

Quote:The Black community has become much more culturally western over the last couple generations. Only in the deepest inner city ghettos has a separatist subculture really survived. As for white supremacists, I think they would be much more hostile to a Muslim black community than they would be to a christian one. Trump is much more anti-mexican and anti-immigrant anyway, so a hispanic exodus to mexico would be far more likely than any black emigration.

Across-the-board ethnic cleansing can't be ruled out - including the Jews exercising their right to emigrate to Israel under the Law Of Return.

I have always maintained that the real reason the righty-whities are "pro-Israel" is because they have delusions about making American Jews emigrate there - and the more territory Israel holds, the more plausible that becomes.

Get rid of all the blacks, the Hispanics, and the Jews, and the electorate will be Republican for as far as the eye can see.

[Eric the Green]

I feel like responding to this post by Warren Dew. It could be educational. I am glad to see a new poster here. The old pro-gun arguments like this, leave me puzzled and baffled and bemused, however. And no offense intended, but there's much to refute in these kinds of statements.

Warren Dew:

Quote:I'll skip the political arguments where no one is interested in being convinced anyway, but I will address this a bit. The majority opinion in Heller, which as you point out allows gun regulation, but not de facto bans, is really the only reasonable interpretation. The minoriity interpretation would have to be based on the idea that the government needs protection from the people of the government's right to use arms, which is pretty far fetched and entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bill of rights, which is all about protecting the people from the government.

Clinton's team has made it quite clear that she intends to use the Scalia vacancy to reverse Heller, which would eliminate any individual right to bear arms. That would also eliminate any ability of the people to protect themselves against the elites' making the democratic process a sham and against the elites' eliminating all other individual liberties that they don't care to grant.

This is a common argument but quite incorrect. I am always surprised that any government would recognize in its constitution the right of the people to rise up and overthrow it by force of arms. The second amendment is indeed about the need of a free state to protect itself. The need to put down uprisings and repel invasions is specifically mentioned in the constitution, iirc. That's why the militia was needed. It was probably intended to repel a slave rebellion. In any case, the people can't protect themselves from the government through their individual right to bear arms. The government has to enforce law and order and protect itself from invasion. It has to be armed, therefore, and is always likely to be better armed than individual gun owners are. The only way for the people to threaten the government violently with guns is to do what Dixie did; form an alternative government, conscript an army, equip it with all the weapons an army can muster, and make itself into the very kind of state that you are rebelling against.

The idea that the people protect themselves from the government with their own arms, suggests that police shooting unarmed black people has justified what the guys did in Dallas and New Orleans in response, and shooting police/the government by themselves. I disagree; they did not have the right to go kill police. Black lives matter, and the Black Panthers did some things right, but no, the people do not have the constitutional right to shoot the government or rise up and overthrow it-- unless they are ready to set up an alternative state of their own with their own constitution and defend it with a full army. Talk like this from Warren Dew suggests that many people today are ready for civil war, and have utterly given up on law and politics as an alternative. Be sure and understand what you are getting into with your calls for individuals to be armed to "protect themselves from the government." It means civil war and gross slaughter, for which the rebels will suffer disproportionately.

Quote:And with the shift from individual firearms to nuclear weapons as the critical weapons of war, that could mean we would be saying goodbye to democracy and individual rights forever. It has only been governments' need for large numbers of armed citizens to fight their wars that has forced the government to grant citizens power and freedom; without that need, the elites can ignore the citizens' welfare entirely.

This is a strange statement that takes me aback. So Warren, you are saying here that free governments need to have large numbers of armed citizens ready to fight wars, which really means drafting huge numbers into the army, and without this the people lose their freedom. But the freest countries in the world are precisely those who are poorly armed, have gun control, and work together well with other countries. Maybe you can get Cynic Hero to agree with you; but no, heavily-armed countries are those who oppress their people and invade other countries, generally-speaking. Governments with large armies do not build them from individual gun fanatics who are resisting the government. Armies do not consist of such individualist libertarian anarchist gun toters. Governments build armies by putting young people into their armies and taxing their citizens to put lots of military weapons in their hands and at their control. So what are you talking about here, Warren? Make some sense of your statement, and take responsibility for it if you can. I don't think you can.