Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Debate about Gun Control
(05-23-2017, 03:16 AM)Galen Wrote:
(05-23-2017, 01:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(05-23-2017, 12:16 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: To me what I have said on this makes eminent sense. No need to rehash. As I have also said, it makes sense these days to compromise between rural and urban needs on this issue. The rural side is not interested in compromise, however. The red side is stuck in extremism on this and all other issues. The blue side is more flexible. That is also the weakness of the blue side.

I'm not sure the red guys are as firmly stuck as they have been.  Trump has taken the unraveling memes way beyond the pale, and is doing so with remarkable chaos and dysfunction.  His narcissism and lack of people skills won't make it easy for him to recover.  The Republicans are split.  It's too soon to say where things are going, but it doesn't look like the unraveling status quo is the best bet.

The Republican Party base is at odds with its establishment which why Trump ended up as president.  On the other hand, the progressives seem to be at odds with everybody.  The Democrats have pretty deep divisions of its own to deal with right now.

Welcome to the wonderful world of living in a declining empire.  The government is bankrupt and neither it nor the various will accept this fundamental truth.  As a consequence each interest group is trying to stick everyone else with the check when the music stops.

The government is fiscally bankrupt due to an too heavy play of the low taxes unraveling memes.  The government is morally bankrupt as both parties have embraced serving the big money campaign contributions rather than striving to earn the trust and backing of the People.  The positive side of the Trump, Clinton and Sanders election is that the People are beginning to recognize this, that the establishment candidates are distrusted.  This might leave room for a period of government where there is more care for serving the nation than attracting campaign contributions from the wealthy.

Electing Trump was a big slap in the face of both establishments.  In many ways I find the rejection of the establishment a positive sign.  It is becoming clearer, though, that the nation just chose the wrong anti-establishment.  Trump is going all in with the Reagan memes that drove the unraveling era.  He might just make us fully unraveled, and give us a chance to find where we want to go.  Our current destination seems to be Rock Bottom.

Yes, the failure of the establishment is becoming more visible.  I can only hope candidates arrive who can focus more on the interests of the nation.

During the Agricultural Age, failed empires often died entirely.  The names of great states would disappear from the maps.  Since the industrial age, the dominant states continue to exist, but with less ability and inclination to bully their neighbors.  Since the Industrial Age, Spain though access to New World gold, France though uniting a large area, Britain with its overseas colonies and naval power, Germany with its militarism, the United States with its large land area an its distance from the damaging effects of the world wars, Russia too with its large size, all took their turns as bully empires that dominated the world through economic, military and political clout.

Most over extended what they could do with that clout.  All had a sense of entitlement, a feeling that they were so great they could force their will on others.  All put too much faith and effort into the military and bankrupted themselves in debt.  Well, not quite all yet.  The United States is still working on it.  The red unraveling memes of embracing debt, not taxing to balance the debt, and spending lots on the military are leading us that way, but we aren't over the cliff yet.  Or, perhaps, we are over the cliff, but we haven't noticed yet.

So, yes, I can see us letting go of the 'lone superpower' meme.  Europe, China, Russia and other military economic powers are close to becoming our equal.  The advantage we had of having the only intact industrial infrastructure after World War II is long gone.  Stepping back from the notion that we can force our will on everybody might be prudent. If our urban elite is a annoying our rural regions by forcing their culture and values on them, perhaps the rest of the world feels the same way?

But I don't see us totally going away.  The various great powers of the Industrial Age all had to learn to avoid hubris, to step back to a more normal place in the global pecking order. They survived though in a respectable way.  Cutting back on our pride and feeling of dominance could well be a good thing.  Still, a large number of Americans still glory in a magnificent military and in frequent meddling.  We are still acting like a superpower, even if we haven't the economy to back it.
Reply
(05-23-2017, 01:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(05-23-2017, 12:16 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: To me what I have said on this makes eminent sense. No need to rehash. As I have also said, it makes sense these days to compromise between rural and urban needs on this issue. The rural side is not interested in compromise, however. The red side is stuck in extremism on this and all other issues. The blue side is more flexible. That is also the weakness of the blue side.

So long as there is significant talk of true prohibition on the blue side, compromise isn't likely from the red.

I'm not sure the red guys are as firmly stuck as they have been.  Trump has taken the unraveling memes way beyond the pale, and is doing so with remarkable chaos and dysfunction.  His narcissism and lack of people skills won't make it easy for him to recover.  The Republicans are split.  It's too soon to say where things are going, but it doesn't look like the unraveling status quo is the best bet.

I find it far easier to comprehend the red base than you.  For the most part I can follow you, but there are a few pieces of the puzzle that won't fall together for me.

The prohibition talk on the blue side applies to military weapons ("assault rifles, etc."). If this is the basis for their lack of compromise, then it has nothing to do with their interest in hunting or self-defense, but only in their interest in possessing weapons of mass murder, however they may justify it in their arguments.

A few are pealing off now from the Trump/GOP base. The GOP and Trump are wedded at the hip, but if he/they lose a small percentage over the long run, then the GOP will lose elections.

I could say I understand the red base better than you, because I am able to see through all of their delusions, not just most. That's how I would spin your statement into my favor. Don't get too dizzy.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The prohibition talk on the blue side applies to military weapons ("assault rifles, etc."). If this is the basis for their lack of compromise, then it has nothing to do with their interest in hunting or self-defense, but only in their interest in possessing weapons of mass murder, however they may justify it in their arguments.

You don't speak for the entire blue coalition.  There are some who want more prohibition than you.  Alas, these tend to be the most noisy and attention gathering bunch.  Paranoia tends to be focused on the most paranoid worthy extremists.

It isn't hard to justify arguments for military grade weapons.  The founding fathers expected the militia to repel invasions.  The weren't kidding when they said the government couldn't restrict the types of weapons the People could carry.  There is also a collective rights Supreme Court case from the gangster area that said the government could restrict possessions of assault rifles (Thompson sub machine guns).  This is because the Thompson was not used by the military, thus had nothing to do with a militia.  The collective right assertion was that anything carried by the military can't be restricted.  Alas, not long after that litmus test was set, World War II came around and the military started distributing Thompsons to many infantry.  That precedent hasn't been totally clobbered.  At the moment, if the military can carry something, so can the People.

Not that I'm crazy about that precedent.  I wouldn't mind the 2nd being rewritten, but the two sides are so far apart it isn't likely to happen.

(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: A few are pealing off now from the Trump/GOP base. The GOP and Trump are wedded at the hip, but if he/they lose a small percentage over the long run, then the GOP will lose elections.

We can hope.

(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I could say I understand the red base better than you, because I am able to see through all of their delusions, not just most. That's how I would spin your statement into my favor. Don't get too dizzy.

You have a well developed straw man of how Republicans think.  It is a dark twisted parody of how they really think.  The purpose is to justify hate rather than to understand.  If they say something that isn't part of your straw man, you'll substitute your straw man for what people actually say.  This is not the same, though it does induce dizziness on any who might try to take you seriously.  Alas, parody straw men are all too common around here.

When the other guy's world view is clearly conflicting one's own, it's easy to create one's own delusions while pretending to be seeing through theirs.
Reply
(05-23-2017, 01:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The prohibition talk on the blue side applies to military weapons ("assault rifles, etc."). If this is the basis for their lack of compromise, then it has nothing to do with their interest in hunting or self-defense, but only in their interest in possessing weapons of mass murder, however they may justify it in their arguments.

You don't speak for the entire blue coalition.  There are some who want more prohibition than you.  Alas, these tend to be the most noisy and attention gathering bunch.  Paranoia tends to be focused on the most paranoid worthy extremists.

Not true at all. Those speaking out for gun control today are quite moderate in their proposals, as are all the politicians who support them. YOu can say that people are screaming for prohibition in order to explain the fact that the red side is rigidly extreme while the blue side is flexible. But it's just the fact that the red side is rigidly extreme while the blue side is flexible. If you want to be diplomatic toward the red side, that's fine, and good luck. But the facts are the facts.

Quote:
It isn't hard to justify arguments for military grade weapons.  The founding fathers expected the militia to repel invasions.  The weren't kidding when they said the government couldn't restrict the types of weapons the People could carry.  There is also a collective rights Supreme Court case from the gangster area that said the government could restrict possessions of assault rifles (Thompson sub machine guns).  This is because the Thompson was not used by the military, thus had nothing to do with a militia.  The collective right assertion was that anything carried by the military can't be restricted.  Alas, not long after that litmus test was set, World War II came around and the military started distributing Thompsons to many infantry.  That precedent hasn't been totally clobbered.  At the moment, if the military can carry something, so can the People.

Not that I'm crazy about that precedent.  I wouldn't mind the 2nd being rewritten, but the two sides are so far apart it isn't likely to happen.

Infantry is military, of course. Restricting military weapons just makes sense; there's nothing more to say, and yet people keep arguing. That's because the red side is stubborn and extreme.

Quote:
(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I could say I understand the red base better than you, because I am able to see through all of their delusions, not just most. That's how I would spin your statement into my favor. Don't get too dizzy.

You have a well developed straw man of how Republicans think.  It is a dark twisted parody of how they really think.  The purpose is to justify hate rather than to understand.  If they say something that isn't part of your straw man, you'll substitute your straw man for what people actually say.  This is not the same, though it does induce dizziness on any who might try to take you seriously.  Alas, parody straw men are all too common around here.

When the other guy's world view is clearly conflicting one's own, it's easy to create one's own delusions while pretending to be seeing through theirs.

No, nobody knows the Republicans better than I do! Smile

No, it's not about hate, as I said before. The point is not to hate them; the point is to oppose them. Even understanding them is quite compatible with opposing them politically. Quite clearly, it's about understanding, and what I report about what they do is generally accurate. No substitutes necessary. When you or others substitute the word "hate" for the word "oppose" or "disagree," and start on ad hominems, you are admitting that you'd rather make accusations than engage in honest dialogue. There is no use hating anyone, generally speaking. In fact, spiritual advisors and authorities generally say it's better to forgive, for they know not what they do. And am I really any better than they? No; they may be confused or even wilfully-ignorant about certain issues, but that's no reason to hate them. It would be nice if they would inform themselves. Heck, I don't even hate Galen!

Some world views are more aligned with reality than others.

Are YOU delusional about guns and self-defense? Probably, I would think so; or at least you think that I don't understand your point of view, and I think you don't understand mine. Both have been explained and researched ad nauseum here and elsewhere, so further explanation is useless. Certainly many gun advocates are delusional, whether or not that includes you.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(05-23-2017, 01:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The prohibition talk on the blue side applies to military weapons ("assault rifles, etc."). If this is the basis for their lack of compromise, then it has nothing to do with their interest in hunting or self-defense, but only in their interest in possessing weapons of mass murder, however they may justify it in their arguments.

You don't speak for the entire blue coalition.  There are some who want more prohibition than you.  Alas, these tend to be the most noisy and attention gathering bunch.  Paranoia tends to be focused on the most paranoid worthy extremists.

It isn't hard to justify arguments for military grade weapons.  The founding fathers expected the militia to repel invasions.  The weren't kidding when they said the government couldn't restrict the types of weapons the People could carry.  There is also a collective rights Supreme Court case from the gangster area that said the government could restrict possessions of assault rifles (Thompson sub machine guns).  This is because the Thompson was not used by the military, thus had nothing to do with a militia.  The collective right assertion was that anything carried by the military can't be restricted.  Alas, not long after that litmus test was set, World War II came around and the military started distributing Thompsons to many infantry.  That precedent hasn't been totally clobbered.  At the moment, if the military can carry something, so can the People.

Not that I'm crazy about that precedent.  I wouldn't mind the 2nd being rewritten, but the two sides are so far apart it isn't likely to happen.

(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: A few are pealing off now from the Trump/GOP base. The GOP and Trump are wedded at the hip, but if he/they lose a small percentage over the long run, then the GOP will lose elections.

We can hope.

(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I could say I understand the red base better than you, because I am able to see through all of their delusions, not just most. That's how I would spin your statement into my favor. Don't get too dizzy.

You have a well developed straw man of how Republicans think.  It is a dark twisted parody of how they really think.  The purpose is to justify hate rather than to understand.  If they say something that isn't part of your straw man, you'll substitute your straw man for what people actually say.  This is not the same, though it does induce dizziness on any who might try to take you seriously.  Alas, parody straw men are all too common around here.

When the other guy's world view is clearly conflicting one's own, it's easy to create one's own delusions while pretending to be seeing through theirs.

This past Sunday, the SF Examiner published a letter from two Far Left housing advocates. They are part of the camp who hates all developers all the time, and generally oppose new developments even when they have below market units. These two advocates lumped in people who are trying to work with developers instead of against them as being part of the Alt Right. I had to laugh because the enemies of these two Far Left dudes include many People of Color who are life long Democrats and who I am positive did not vote for Trump.
#ImpeachTrump
#ProsecuteTreason
#HUAC2.0
#RealNationalism
#NaziPunksFOff


Mark 13:22 - "For there shall rise false Christs and false prophets, and they shall give signs and wonders, to seduce, if possible, also the chosen."


Reply
(05-23-2017, 07:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(05-23-2017, 03:16 AM)Galen Wrote:
(05-23-2017, 01:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(05-23-2017, 12:16 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: To me what I have said on this makes eminent sense. No need to rehash. As I have also said, it makes sense these days to compromise between rural and urban needs on this issue. The rural side is not interested in compromise, however. The red side is stuck in extremism on this and all other issues. The blue side is more flexible. That is also the weakness of the blue side.

I'm not sure the red guys are as firmly stuck as they have been.  Trump has taken the unraveling memes way beyond the pale, and is doing so with remarkable chaos and dysfunction.  His narcissism and lack of people skills won't make it easy for him to recover.  The Republicans are split.  It's too soon to say where things are going, but it doesn't look like the unraveling status quo is the best bet.

The Republican Party base is at odds with its establishment which why Trump ended up as president.  On the other hand, the progressives seem to be at odds with everybody.  The Democrats have pretty deep divisions of its own to deal with right now.

Welcome to the wonderful world of living in a declining empire.  The government is bankrupt and neither it nor the various will accept this fundamental truth.  As a consequence each interest group is trying to stick everyone else with the check when the music stops.

The government is fiscally bankrupt due to an too heavy play of the low taxes unraveling memes.

More like the government has a spending problem and won't scale back until circumstances force them to.  Declining empire scenarios range from Great Britain to Rome.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
(05-24-2017, 03:25 AM)Galen Wrote:
(05-23-2017, 07:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The government is fiscally bankrupt due to an too heavy play of the low taxes unraveling memes.

More like the government has a spending problem and won't scale back until circumstances force them to.  Declining empire scenarios range from Great Britain to Rome.

(This doesn't really belong in the gun policy thread.  If you want to take it elsewhere, do so and I'll follow.)

What do you see as the cause behind declining entire syndrome?

For me, each superpower in the Industrial Age has had different causes for having their dominant time followed by fading from having extraordinary status.  Spain had an influx of New World gold that made her an economic and thus military superpower for a time, but that faded with the supply of gold.  France united a large amount of territory to get a large economic and military position, but overused this military strength to the point that force Germany to unite and for alliances to form against her.  She faded and became a strong but not super dominant country.  Britain built a naval strength alongside a strong number of colonies, but at the end of World War II the United States forgave lend lease loans if the debtor would open colonial ports to trade.  This was financially too big an economic advantage to deny, but colonial imperialism and empires based on it faded.  For a time the United States had the only industrial infrastructure intact after World War II, but this is gone.

Most of these countries continued to spend money on their military after the economic advantage that made them a superpower went away.  It’s tempting, when one was a genuine superpower, to keep spending on the military and meddling internationally as if one still is a superpower.  There is a common symptom of superpowers continuing to spend on the military after they can no longer afford to do so, resulting in massive debt.  That seems consistent, but why they can no longer do so varies highly.

Today’s US is spending a lot more on the military than anyone else.  Still, they are cutting back from Cold War expenditures.  They should be able to maintain Cold War levels.  There hasn’t been that much a cause of economic upheaval.

I tend to blame the unraveling memes, often identified with Reagan but coming from other sources as well.  Cutting taxes has been a constant.  Allowing debt to accumulate is persistent.  There has been a partisan push to spend more on guns and less on butter.  A large part of the country favors this Republican unraveling pattern.  Trump’s popularity comes in part by pushing the unraveling memes in a blatant extreme way.

Now, I’d be broadly in favor of becoming a major power but not pretending to be the sole superpower.  With ten carrier groups and task groups intended to put marines ashore, we are maintaining an ability to meddle anywhere in the world with a seacoast.  That’s expensive, but ego satisfying.  We are still able to interfere most everywhere while serving the needs of our people ever more poorly.  Land wars in Asia, though, remain problematic.  The debt remains problematic.

Anyway, can one grumble about the declining empire pattern while sticking with the unraveling memes?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Political Polarity To Reverse On Gun Control, States' Rights? Anthony '58 24 1,423 02-04-2017, 05:51 AM
Last Post: Galen
  More Blacks See Gun Ownership As Civil Rights Cause Dan '82 3 342 07-18-2016, 07:05 PM
Last Post: Anthony '58
  Debate about the Vietnam War Anthony '58 66 5,086 06-28-2016, 05:37 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)