(07-07-2016, 03:12 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-07-2016, 11:31 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(07-06-2016, 09:05 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-06-2016, 08:51 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 12:24 PM)playwrite Wrote: There it is.  I knew you get around to the false equivalency of banning military weapons platforms to illegal drugs.  I guess comparing such a ban to  say ownership of bazookas, chemical warfare shells, tanks and ICBMs is just too far afield, ey?

Are you sure you're not just trying to talk yourself into opening up your own Meth lab?  Maybe too many Breaking Bad episodes?  pssss, most, by far, get caught or killed eventually.   As far as I'm concern, it's a triple: less military platforms in civilian hands, less ammosexuals running free, and a devastated GOP.  Whooo-hoo!

There we go with ad-hominum / strawman again.  You know full well that the above is not what I represent or advocate, but that's all you've got, lies and insults.

Hmm…  I don’t know if it is that you can’t get it, or that you don’t want to get it, or that some sort of defense mechanism that protects your world view is kicking in.  To me, what I’m trying to express is very simple.  I’ll go around one more time.  It’s not that I think you are open to basic human decency, it’s for the other people reading at this point.

What is the opposite of partisan?

A partisan has a culture, set of values and/or world view that he is extremely fond of and has grave difficulty moving outside of.  Anything that meshes with his home culture is obviously and absolutely correct.  Anything that opposes it must therefore be wrong.  

The opposite mode of thinking acknowledges that one can have differences in self interest without being wrong.  It might line up with the Myers Briggs distinction between Judger and Perceptive.  The Judger sees things through a system while the Perceptive tries to see things as they are.  My own perspective weighs heavily that if a whole bunch of people are strongly affiliated with a culture, there is a reason the culture came into existence.  If it is an old culture, there was likely a time when said culture worked very well.  If it is a new and rapidly changing culture, it likely developed out of an older culture that had significant problems, or someone had a theory which sounded really good and took root among lots of people.

Neither a conservative or progressive culture is necessarily ideal.  A conservative culture or world view is apt to ignore problems that are important to some but not others.  On the other hand, not every new idea is a good one.  Marxism at one time seemed like a good idea.  So did alcohol prohibition.  People can work up a ton of enthusiasm for something untried and spend considerable effort creating a disaster.

The key, no matter whether one is attached to a conservative of perspective approach, is the attitude towards those with conflicting perspective.  The partisan will ignore, disparage and reject conflicting ideas.  The opposite would be to respect, acknowledge and perhaps incorporate aspects of conflicting world views.

I will admit to disliking the heavily partisan approach.

One aspect of the uber partisan approach is the techniques used to reject an opposing world view or culture wholesale.  One labels the rival group with some extremely preparative ugly label, then state it obvious that anyone so labeled is wrong.  Labels that might be used include stupid, religious fanatic, insane and authoritarian.  This can become argument by insult.  It can be and often is ad-hominium, as one is not dealing with ideas or history, one is just disparaging the individual.  It is often strawman, as the labels are not always accurate or relevant.

But if one is sufficiently partisan, if one insults someone, it seems to follow that one has invalidated his culture and won the argument.

The recent examples are “ammosexual” and “Narcissist”.  These are variations on the insanity offense.  If everyone on the other size is crazy, one can presumably ignore everything they are saying.  Thus a common partisan tactic is to scatter shot accusations that anyone who disagrees with one is insane.

The opposite is to assume that they other guy has reasonable and valid reasons for his beliefs.  The way I try to understand history, if one sees a culture, a way of perceiving the world, there is presumed to be a valid reason why that culture formed.  If one wants to truly understand a history, a culture, a people, one should not strive always to insult and demean, one should seek to understand and respect.

This doesn’t mean one has to always agree.  If I am living somewhere where a new and very real problem is not being addressed, and some other guy lives somewhere where the problem hasn’t become a problem yet, and doesn’t want to pay a lot of money to fix what doesn’t seem to be broken, that ought to be interpreted as reasonable differences of opinion on what it would take to improve life in one place or another.

Differences of opinion should not lead one to jump instantly to the conclusion that the other guy is evil, stupid, insane, authoritarian and/or etc…  The primary approach to understanding and resolving ought not to be to disparage, insult and lie.

Very reasonable response. I have listened to both sides on this issue too and both have some points that are very reasonable and understandable to me.

Oh, that's just great.

Could you write a letter explaining it to the moms of these Sandy Hook kids -



I think it would be particularly helpful to the moms who had closed-caskets, given that most of the head of their kid had been blasted away.  I'm sure they would particularly find comfort in your seeing both sides.

Myself?  I had this reaction to your discovering Bob's 'reasonableness' -

Back to your cage, little man.

(07-07-2016, 03:32 PM)Odin Wrote: I see Playwrite has decided to play the classic authoritarian gambit of politicizing tragedies in order to silence opposition.   

Playwrite, you are officially no better than the Neocons who used 9/11 to force through the USA PATRIOT Act and the Islamophobes like Trump who use the Orlando Massacre to promote their "deport all Muslims" bile. You have no fucking shame.

(07-07-2016, 03:19 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-07-2016, 01:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-07-2016, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Gun control is not prohibition, and gun control advocates are not advocating prohibition of civilian guns.

Well, I don't think you are Noah Webster, nor an official representative of the Dictionary Police.  If you are advocating that possession and use of something be prohibited by the government, you are by definition advocating a prohibition.  The root word is the same.  More important, there are practical implementation problems with prohibitions.  These shouldn't be ignored or glossed over.  In general, the prohibition of mind altering substances has resulted in massive and often violent criminal behavior that the government struggles to keep in check.  I have no reason to expect anything different if other things are prohibited.

(07-07-2016, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I admit I made a typo and at first wrote gin control (u is next to i on the qwerty keyboard). You can chuckle at that and think what you want about it

The sort of gin control that implies one shouldn't have more than a few glasses I can sympathize with.  The sort of gin control attempted in the 1930s?  Not so much.

(07-07-2016, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It often seems like you talk from both sides. I may seem uncivil and partisan to some like you and Taramarie because I am clear about things in my own mind, and say so, but I prefer it that way for myself. I just try to explain the truth as I see it the best I can, and learn from others who know things that I don't know, even if I don't agree to their worldview or ideology. And my passions come through too at times, because there's lots to be passionate about (to paraphrase Mrs. Thatcher).

I see reviewing and respecting both sides of a question to be a feature rather than a bug.  I guess if I followed up on that, I'd have to review and respect partisan thinking as well.  There are times when it is appropriate to go partisan, when the other guy is wrong and dangerously wrong.  My father's generation was quite partisan in their attitudes about Hitler, for example.  Even then, it doesn't hurt to understand how and why he managed to gather a following.  Even if one can in no way tolerate a particular set of values, it is prudent to understand them.

Exactly. Trying to get them to change does not seem to work. So understanding them is the better way to go around it. Understanding both sides and weighing them up against each other, negatives and positives and finding a solution that way while showing you are listening to the others may be the best way to go around it. What do you think?

(07-07-2016, 03:39 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-07-2016, 03:32 PM)Odin Wrote: I see Playwrite has decided to play the classic authoritarian gambit of politicizing tragedies in order to silence opposition.   

Playwrite, you are officially no better than the Neocons who used 9/11 to force through the USA PATRIOT Act and the Islamophobes like Trump who use the Orlando Massacre to promote their "deport all Muslims" bile. You have no fucking shame.

Exactly. He seems to think the kiwi supports guns. No, I don't. I have mentioned many times how I am so happy I live in NZ and not over there because we do not have access to the sorts of guns they do as well as it is illegal to carry guns around. I despise guns. BUT understanding the way the others think is not a bad thing. It may open up conversation in fact. It may even teach you something. Cramming one way of thinking onto another just tends to make the other side buckle down on their ideal. It is not an intelligent strategy.

(07-08-2016, 10:19 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 08:45 AM)playwrite Wrote: Dallas
Likely many of the officers that were shot were shot in the first 10 minutes.  It makes obvious the firepower of these military weapons platforms and how much they overpower police force standard issue.  The targets being well-armed and well-trained police force lays waste to the "good guy shooter" nonsense.  What it should really make clear is if you hear someone state that these weapons are no different, you are listening to a moron and should move on.

Odin, I hope my pointing out the latest mass shooting doesn't put you into a rage again.  Again, however, if it does, too F'n bad for you.

Maybe a nit, but these days most LE are fairly well militarized. SFPD have issued Glock and Sig now for years. In terms of rifles the cops have military gear.

(07-08-2016, 10:50 AM)playwrite Wrote: I don't think there's a single police-at-fault shooting that involved their use of any military weapons platforms like an AR-15 style weapon.  As far as I know, every one of these events, including the recent LA and MN shootings, were with standard issue handguns.  The police bring out the military hardware once an event has escalated.

I have big problems with local police force having military weapons platforms as standard issue.  I just got back from Paris, FR, and the police fire teams with military issue were patrolling all over the place.  Given their situation, that's understandable, but it is a mood killer - do we want that here?  On the other hand, I want the police to be able to outgun the bad guys.  Solution, take the military platforms out of the hands of civilians - this is not rocket science.

(07-08-2016, 05:06 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:02 PM)Webmaster Wrote: I realize this topic gets heated but could everyone avoid gratuitous personal insults.

Thank you. I also have put Playwrite on ignore so that will not continue.

(07-09-2016, 03:16 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:07 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:06 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:02 PM)Webmaster Wrote: I realize this topic gets heated but could everyone avoid gratuitous personal insults.

Thank you. I also have put Playwrite on ignore so that will not continue.

I know what you mean.  Playwrong is right up there with Eric the Obtuse for his ability to ignore reality.   As a previous poster noted Switzerland is not a very violent place despite the fact that the citizens have fully automatic weapons.  Indeed, my understanding of the situation reminds of what the Militia Act of 1798 required of Americans.  Given how small they are it doesn't surprise me that they would go with the militia solution to supplement their defense.

Yes culture and history also plays a part in a relationship with guns. I found the commentary very interesting as that had not been part of the original picture before and only gave us part of the story of the swiss and guns.

(07-09-2016, 03:48 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:32 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:16 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:07 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:06 PM)taramarie Wrote: Thank you. I also have put Playwrite on ignore so that will not continue.

I know what you mean.  Playwrong is right up there with Eric the Obtuse for his ability to ignore reality.   As a previous poster noted Switzerland is not a very violent place despite the fact that the citizens have fully automatic weapons.  Indeed, my understanding of the situation reminds of what the Militia Act of 1798 required of Americans.  Given how small they are it doesn't surprise me that they would go with the militia solution to supplement their defense.

Yes culture and history also plays a part in a relationship with guns. I found the commentary very interesting as that had not been part of the original picture before and only gave us part of the story of the swiss and guns.

In my experience when someone decides on violence as a solution to their problem then they will find the tool.  Firearms are simply a tool like any other.

I saw some commentary from some folk from Switzerland who had gone to the black market to buy ammunition which is what i tell people here that would happen in America but they do not listen. It opens up a market to someone. Someone will eagerly cash in.

(07-09-2016, 04:15 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 04:05 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:48 AM)taramarie Wrote: That happens with pretty much everything. Ban something and they will find a way to get it.  Government edicts can only go so far.  My great-grandmother pointed that out to me when I was a kid.  She also called the police crooks which is a major condemnation coming from a Victorian era women who didn't use obscenities.  Which tells you how long this sort of crap has been going on.  The cell phone camera and YouTube just make it so obvious that it is hard to ignore.

Agreed. I take it your great grandmother was a lost generation member? She sounds like she had a wise head on her shoulders. Yes I made the comparison to alcohol prohibition but the kiwi knows squat apparently.

(07-09-2016, 05:40 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 05:12 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 04:15 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 04:05 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:48 AM)taramarie Wrote: That happens with pretty much everything. Ban something and they will find a way to get it.  Government edicts can only go so far.  My great-grandmother pointed that out to me when I was a kid.  She also called the police crooks which is a major condemnation coming from a Victorian era women who didn't use obscenities.  Which tells you how long this sort of crap has been going on.  The cell phone camera and YouTube just make it so obvious that it is hard to ignore.

Agreed. I take it your great grandmother was a lost generation member? She sounds like she had a wise head on her shoulders. Yes I made the comparison to alcohol prohibition but the kiwi knows squat apparently.

Yes, she was Lost.  Even by my time there were not very many of them left.  The Boomers ignored them but you have no idea how much trouble she saved me from.  Twenty-three years dead and she is still worth listening to and I can't say that about many of the living.

The kiwi is telling them that their Utopia is not possible which is something they can't handle.  So they decide to ignore reality. Consider the following quote:

      The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.

                - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams

This is the mentality you are dealing with.

Yes it is impossible to talk to people who put idealism over reality. I am for idealism.....if it is DOABLE. If not it is a complete waste of time and money. They also have to consider that in some places the culture is different. Here in NZ for instance sure we have guns and we have murders. We have a black market (particularly in weed as it is still not legal here) but we do have a different outlook when it comes to guns. Think of my reaction when i saw people carrying them around with them in SA. People there were ok with it. They thought it made them safe. But in my own country it is viewed in the opposite way. Someone carrying one would be viewed as dangerous. People go ape shit and go into lock down if they see a person marching in somewhere with one (which is illegal). Culturally we are way more sensitive to seeing a firearm on someone and view it quite differently (due to our laws) than America which has a very different history connected with guns and their 2nd Amendment right. It won them their independence from the British and the Nazi threat for instance and is their 2nd Amendment right. It is viewed as a problem solver and security. Here, security for some but mainly a sign of danger. Our laws could be created due to a different history, culture and mindset. Over in America....I highly doubt it. As some Americans tell me....."over my dead body they will. They will have to pry it from my cold dead hands before I hand it over." Now for tighter regulations that even gets them jumping up and down. I would like to know what kind of regulations they are considering. As a non American I do not hear of everything so I have only heard about tighter regulations but that is it. For a country that demands its freedom especially when it comes to free speech and guns forgive me if i am skeptical about the work-ability of such laws without someone making big in the black market!

(07-09-2016, 06:29 AM)Galen Wrote: to taramarie --

In a very real sense the question you have to ask is not: Do you trust the government of today but rather the one of tomorrow?  History is filled with examples of governments that were benevolent that later became oppressive and tyrannical.  Famous last words: It can't happen here.  The Germans felt that way in the during the Weimar regime but that gave way to the Nazi era and that did not end well.  I like to think of the Second Amendment as a canary in the coal mine.

Consider the following graph of trust in the federal government:


I was born in 1965 throughout the entirety of my life trust in the major institutions of the US has been generally down and I don't see the general trend changing. While there have been upswings the general trend has been downward and you have seen how its enforcers regard the little people.  Under such circumstances would you trust them with a monopoly on force?  Governments under stress tend to get very abusive.

This is the problem that we face.  Bankrupt governments are also notorious for not being able to provide security for their people.  By any historical measure the US Federal Government is bankrupt even if most of its citizens are incapable or unwilling to recognize this fact.  Such governments are also notorious for abusing their citizens and it seems unlikely that the US will be any different.  To my mind the only way to prevent such an outcome is to deny them such a monopoly on the use of force.

Consider what the the following link from the University of Hawaii:
   https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

I know that there are many here who think that the kiwi doesn't know anything but you are willing to look at the data and that puts you seriously ahead of (distorted handles redacted).  I understand your position on the matter but I provide the data for others to look at so they may understand the conversation if they choose.  The fact that you understand the general case of what government prohibitions tend to do means that you have a better insight into human nature than most of those who are older than you.

There is an idea that a fourth turning leads to an increased trust in the usual institutions but that doesn't take into account the end of empires.  I am fairly certain that the American Empire which got its start in 1898 is about to end and it will not be quick or painless.

(07-09-2016, 02:51 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 06:29 AM)Galen Wrote: to taramarie --

In a very real sense the question you have to ask is not: Do you trust the government of today but rather the one of tomorrow?  History is filled with examples of governments that were benevolent that later became oppressive and tyrannical.  Famous last words: It can't happen here.  The Germans felt that way in the during the Weimar regime but that gave way to the Nazi era and that did not end well.  I like to think of the Second Amendment as a canary in the coal mine.

Consider the following graph of trust in the federal government:


I was born in 1965 throughout the entirety of my life trust in the major institutions of the US has been generally down and I don't see the general trend changing. While there have been upswings the general trend has been downward and you have seen how its enforcers regard the little people.  Under such circumstances would you trust them with a monopoly on force?  Governments under stress tend to get very abusive.

This is the problem that we face.  Bankrupt governments are also notorious for not being able to provide security for their people.  By any historical measure the US Federal Government is bankrupt even if most of its citizens are incapable or unwilling to recognize this fact.  Such governments are also notorious for abusing their citizens and it seems unlikely that the US will be any different.  To my mind the only way to prevent such an outcome is to deny them such a monopoly on the use of force.

Consider what the the following link from the University of Hawaii:
   https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

I know that there are many here who think that the kiwi doesn't know anything but you are willing to look at the data and that puts you seriously ahead of (distorted handles redacted).  I understand your position on the matter but I provide the data for others to look at so they may understand the conversation if they choose.  The fact that you understand the general case of what government prohibitions tend to do means that you have a better insight into human nature than most of those who are older than you.

There is an idea that a fourth turning leads to an increased trust in the usual institutions but that doesn't take into account the end of empires.  I am fairly certain that the American Empire which got its start in 1898 is about to end and it will not be quick or painless.

1. What matters is that the debt not rise faster than the population. It may seem paradoxical, but the currency in your wallet and the money in your bank account is all government debt. That debt is easy to transact -- far easier than gold.

2. Of course I would distrust a Trump administration -- so much that if my job did not depend upon remaining in the USA I would have an extended "workation" in some other country. I understand that New Zealand is very nice. Contrast Australia, which has some of the most dangerous wildlife, and South Africa, which has some very dangerous people.

3. The solution I see is to cut out the crony capitalism and reduce the role of the federal government to welfare, law enforcement, and defense. Except for some work on the Census I have gotten nothing from the federal government without paying for it. Census pay? At least I worked for it as if for a private employer.

4. An empire in decline? First the society must go undemocratic, and government by lobbyist is not democracy.

5. Hitler was a freakish situation. American minorities are far better organized than was the model minority (the Jews!) of Germany. We know what a dictatorship looks like from film clips of Germany, a country with obvious similarities of culture to the United States, between 1933 and 1945.

We do not have a recent hyperinflation. We do not have a recent, crushing defeat that polarized the nation between doves who wanted no more war and hawks seeking to settle scores with other nations. Gutter racism is socially unacceptable socially. It's telling that the people who use religious and racial slurs are the same people who use copious four-letter words. In short, such people lack impulse control.

(07-09-2016, 03:07 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:06 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:02 PM)Webmaster Wrote: I realize this topic gets heated but could everyone avoid gratuitous personal insults.

Thank you. I also have put Playwrite on ignore so that will not continue.

I know what you mean.  Playwrong is right up there with Eric the Obtuse for his ability to ignore reality.   As a previous poster noted Switzerland is not a very violent place despite the fact that the citizens have fully automatic weapons.  Indeed, my understanding of the situation reminds of what the Militia Act of 1798 required of Americans.  Given how small they are it doesn't surprise me that they would go with the militia solution to supplement their defense.

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

(07-09-2016, 05:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Switzerland according to the stats I've seen has more gun deaths and violence than other developed countries, although the USA is far ahead of Switzerland in that dubious distinction. Americans and Swiss alike are fools to allow citizens to have military weapons. I'm not sure just what exactly the Swiss are allowed to have tho; not taking Galen's word. I imagine though that if Swiss citizens are part of the "militia" which is their armed forces, then they are well trained and regulated. Our militia here in the USA? We've seen pictures of them....