Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-04-2018, 12:16 AM)Galen Wrote:

(11-03-2018, 11:54 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I know you have a dog fetish, but you really should give up the deadliness difference.  And the law difference.  And on understanding the founding father's perspective.  Or understanding the red perspective.  In fact, you are missing about half the gun issue.

I don't think he is capable of understanding these issues because they lead to conclusions that he does not like.  He simply can't believe that governments tend to kill their own citizens.  He believes that it can't happen here but the founding fathers had a rather different opinion which is reflected in their own actions and writings.  In a very real sense the founding fathers would have agreed with Mao that political power grows out of a barrel of a gun and so they decided the people must be armed to insure that they held ultimate political power.

Pbrower missed rather more than half of the issue and seems to be heading to Eric the Obtuse levels of ignorance.  From a strictly numbers point of view the garden variety criminal can't even begin to match the body count that governments routinely rack up.  They simply refuse to consider the second and third order effects of policy choices.

I must admit that I really don't understand pbrower's obsession on dogs either.

I think it is some sort of weapons substitution.  He is not helpless without weapons cause he can get another weapon?  Thus, he imagines his best case and assumes it the usual case?  Anyway, he cannot see where the Truth gets left behind.

Anyway, he follows the Jim Crow interpretation as much as you follow the Founding Father's. Understandable, as the Jim Crow interpretation was generally accepted for a century plus. I am biased about anything to do with Jim Crow. One must admit both Jim Crow and the Founding Fathers had political agendas. I just admire the Founding Father's agenda of rights to white males more than the Jim Crow agenda of denying rights to blacks. This is not to say that rights to only white males is not lacking.

But I do think a belief in representative democracy, that violence glorified was necessary more in the Industrial Age than the current new age, makes the Founding Father's glorification of violence as less necessary for change and defense against tyranny. He just does not see violence as necessary against the government sometimes as a valid argument???