Presidential election, 2016

[Classic-Xer]

(12-06-2016, 01:34 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

FWIW, the entire 2nd Amendment hyper-vigilance is just so much overactive paranoia.  It lives in the RW echo chamber and feeds on itself.  At a time when violent crime is very low by historical standards, the rush to get guns and go about armed to the teeth is not only unjustified but more than a little pathological.

Now the very wealthy and famous are in a different universe; they are obvious targets.  But folks like us, we're just not that intriguing to the criminal class. I own no guns and have not felt the need to own one EVER!  Just for the record: no one has tried to rob me, enter my home without permission or even diss me in public.  How about you?

Where do you live? How many types of people live around you? How close do you live to higher crime areas? I have higher crime areas within a mile of me and major high crime areas within 15 miles of me. No one has tried to rob me yet but I know people who have been robbed or have had their homes robbed. I know people who have been roughed up and intimidated by groups of people in the area. I'm aware of armed robberies that have occurred not so far away from home.

[Warren Dew]

(12-06-2016, 01:15 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 01:42 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Clueless.  They actually think propaganda sources like The New York Times are reliable sources, despite their history of making up the news.

I'm not sure if this is intended to be serious or just serious snark.  Real cases of fake news are both common and found almost exclusively on social media or RW news sites.  I would be interested in a cite or two of NY Times fake news reporting.

The best example is probably the Times' constant drumbeat of articles, based on false information, about Iraq's efforts to acquire WMD in the buildup to the Iraq War.  They paved the way for the credulous reception of Powell's erroneous presentation to the UN on the matter by convincing most of the establishment in the US ahead of time.  The Washington Post exposee on the Times's errors was the best article on how far wrong they went, but I can't find it at the moment; however, this article also discusses it:

Quote:During the winter of 2001 and throughout 2002, [New York Times reporter] Miller produced a series of stunning stories about Saddam Hussein’s ambition and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, based largely on information provided by Chalabi and his allies—almost all of which have turned out to be stunningly inaccurate [polite euphemism for "fake"].

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/

Then there was the time when one of their reporters did "on the scene" reporting of the Washington sniper in 2002-2003 from the comfort of his office in New York City:

Quote:The resulting inquiry led to the discovery of fabrication and plagiarism in a number of articles [New York Times reporter Jayson] Blair had written.  Some fabrications include Blair's claims to have traveled from New York to the city mentioned in the dateline, when he did not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Bla...on_scandal

Note that these cases were so extreme that the newspaper had to issue retractions - in the Iraq War case, only after the war had started and no stockpiles of WMD were found, of course.  Given these were tolerated until other sources called them on it, one can only guess how many such Times articles were nearly as bad, but just never caught.

Since then The New York Times has gotten more careful about how they fabricate news, but they still specialize in it, even in normally noncontroversial areas such as science, as I discuss here:

Quote:When I cite a news article, I almost never cite The New York Times. There is a reason for this. The reason is that New York Times articles are long, detailed, well written - and carefully crafted to present only one side of the story. In more plebeian sources, one sidedness is often easily detected, but in the New York Times, the level of detail and the writing skill are very effective in lulling the reader into thinking they are getting the whole story - when in fact they are getting only half the story, if that.

http://psychohist.livejournal.com/76138.html

Once upon a time, The New York Times might have been a reliable newspaper, but that ended some time in the 1980s at the latest.

[Odin]

(12-06-2016, 02:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 01:34 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

FWIW, the entire 2nd Amendment hyper-vigilance is just so much overactive paranoia.  It lives in the RW echo chamber and feeds on itself.  At a time when violent crime is very low by historical standards, the rush to get guns and go about armed to the teeth is not only unjustified but more than a little pathological.

Now the very wealthy and famous are in a different universe; they are obvious targets.  But folks like us, we're just not that intriguing to the criminal class. I own no guns and have not felt the need to own one EVER!  Just for the record: no one has tried to rob me, enter my home without permission or even diss me in public.  How about you?

Where do you live? How many types of people live around you? How close do you live to higher crime areas? I have higher crime areas within a mile of me and major high crime areas within 15 miles of me. No one has tried to rob me yet but I know people who have been robbed or have had their homes robbed. I know people who have been roughed up and intimidated by groups of people in the area. I'm aware of armed robberies that have occurred not so far away from home.

The only truely high-crimes areas we have here in Minnesota are the "ghetto" parts of north Minneapolis. I suspect Classic is confusing "high crime areas" with "places with black people".

[David Horn]

(12-05-2016, 03:23 PM)Galen Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

That is because normal people have to provide their own protection.  Always remember that when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

So your right to protect yourself, in the unlikely event you need to do so, means the rest of us have to be concerned about you.  If you are afraid of the boogieman to the extent that you need to go around armed at all times, how do you think we feel having to interact with you and your arms?  How much of a walking breathing hair trigger are you?  How can we know?

Life isn't that scary, but folks like you manage to make it worse.

[Galen]

(12-06-2016, 01:23 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 02:50 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 02:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: My point, we are listening/reading your posts and allowing  information to enter our brains and using the information received to form our opinions and judgements and positions relating to you. The blue side is obviously anti-gun. The blue side doesn't see/recognize a need or feel the necessity to own a firearm in today's world. I have read your personal positions on gun control which appear to align with that common belief. You don't see a reason or feel the necessity to own a firearm yourself and you have claimed that you'd be willing to vote to give up your right to own a gun if the issue were to be placed on a ballet. A negative sign to me. However, you do seem to understand our reasons/concerns/stances associated with our gun rights and the issue of gun control and you seem to be able to recognize our right to have them as well. A positive sign to me. Where do you really stand on the issue with information that's been received as a positive sign and a negative sign?

There is the small matter of how prohibitions tend to not work.

Five handmade guns a month is a far cry from the production of even the smallest arms manufacturer, yet you cite this as the reason prohibitions don't work.  Really?  Seriously?

If you paid closer attention then you would realize that he isn't the only one making firearms.  There are thousands more just like him scattered through the Philippines which adds up.

[David Horn]

(12-06-2016, 12:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: What's your explanation for why the elites tend to favor gun control?

This wasn't directed to me, but I'll take a shot at answering anyway. 

Elites, by which I assume you mean anyone in the top ~10% financially, socially and/or intellectually, tend to live in urban areas and understand the risk/reward ratio of firearms in that environment.  Accidents, suicides and crimes of passion are much more likely uses of firearms than homestead or personal protection.  They are a net negative.

On the off chance your definition of 'elite' is actually the ~0.01% financially, socially and/or intellectually, then add the threat of external actors attacking them for who they are.   For them, the argument is the same, only more so.

[David Horn]

(12-06-2016, 05:08 PM)Galen Wrote: If you paid closer attention then you would realize that he isn't the only one making firearms.  There are thousands more just like him scattered through the Philippines which adds up.

It wasn't 'he'  It was 'they', and I doubt their are thousands ... or even hundreds.  Then there is the sticky issue of ammunition, which is easy except for the primer.  Even cartridge reuse is dicey after many cycles. 

Then again, anyone firing a weapon made of scrap metal already has a death wish.

[Mikebert]

(12-06-2016, 02:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 01:34 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

FWIW, the entire 2nd Amendment hyper-vigilance is just so much overactive paranoia.  It lives in the RW echo chamber and feeds on itself.  At a time when violent crime is very low by historical standards, the rush to get guns and go about armed to the teeth is not only unjustified but more than a little pathological.

Now the very wealthy and famous are in a different universe; they are obvious targets.  But folks like us, we're just not that intriguing to the criminal class. I own no guns and have not felt the need to own one EVER!  Just for the record: no one has tried to rob me, enter my home without permission or even diss me in public.  How about you?

Where do you live? How many types of people live around you? How close do you live to higher crime areas? I have higher crime areas within a mile of me and major high crime areas within 15 miles of me. No one has tried to rob me yet but I know people who have been robbed or have had their homes robbed. I know people who have been roughed up and intimidated by groups of people in the area. I'm aware of armed robberies that have occurred not so far away from home.

I live less than half a mile from impoverished neighborhoods with high crime.  So what.  Its not my neighborhood.  I have lived here 25 years and in all that time I have had my tires slashed once and a window broken.  Both of those were in the nineties when it was a lot worse.  We are multimillionaires and could easily move.  But our "rent", prop taxes, gas and electric, internet, trash, water, phone and entertainment amounts to about 1000 a month.  It's cheap to live in town. So why would we leave? A decent place would run 250K, with taxes alone twice what we pay plus the foregone return 250K in assets would provide.  I have no problem with guns.  If I felt the need I would get one and learn to use it.  I don't.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-06-2016, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 04:22 PM)Odin Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 02:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 01:34 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

FWIW, the entire 2nd Amendment hyper-vigilance is just so much overactive paranoia.  It lives in the RW echo chamber and feeds on itself.  At a time when violent crime is very low by historical standards, the rush to get guns and go about armed to the teeth is not only unjustified but more than a little pathological.

Now the very wealthy and famous are in a different universe; they are obvious targets.  But folks like us, we're just not that intriguing to the criminal class. I own no guns and have not felt the need to own one EVER!  Just for the record: no one has tried to rob me, enter my home without permission or even diss me in public.  How about you?

Where do you live? How many types of people live around you? How close do you live to higher crime areas? I have higher crime areas within a mile of me and major high crime areas within 15 miles of me. No one has tried to rob me yet but I know people who have been robbed or have had their homes robbed. I know people who have been roughed up and intimidated by groups of people in the area. I'm aware of armed robberies that have occurred not so far away from home.

The only truely high-crimes areas we have here in Minnesota are the "ghetto" parts of north Minneapolis. I suspect Classic is confusing "high crime areas" with "places with black people".

You come on down to the cities and I'll take you through the "ghetto" parts in the Twin Cities. I'll take you through the borderline areas as well. When we are done with them, I'll take you through the more troublesome spots located in the suburban areas. You'll most likely notice that the majority of the people in those area aren't white. You may even notice as we travel through the areas that they're not all blacks either. I was born in a borderline area. It wasn't a borderline area back then but it's one now. North Minneapolis is the ghetto part that country folks mostly see and hear about on the TV news or read and learn bad things about in the newspaper. Back in the day, we heard the most about the violence in South Minneapolis and the Selby/Dale area in St. Paul.

[Galen]

(12-06-2016, 05:15 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 05:08 PM)Galen Wrote: If you paid closer attention then you would realize that he isn't the only one making firearms.  There are thousands more just like him scattered through the Philippines which adds up.

It wasn't 'he'  It was 'they', and I doubt their are thousands ... or even hundreds.  Then there is the sticky issue of ammunition, which is easy except for the primer.  Even cartridge reuse is dicey after many cycles. 

Then again, anyone firing a weapon made of scrap metal already has a death wish.

Drugs seem to get manufactured and imported with out too much trouble.  I don't see ammo as an insurmountable problem.  As for the metal, figuring out which bits of scrap metal are composed of what alloy isn't hard to figure out.  One of the nice things about the M1911 is how forgiving the design is.  John Browning had to make do with worse alloys than this guy is.

[pbrower2a]

WASHINGTON― Ohio’s Republican-led House and Senate passed legislation Tuesday night that would ban abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected― as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

The measure was attached at the last minute as an amendment to an unrelated child abuse bill. It has no exceptions for rape or incest.

If it’s passed into law, physicians could face a year in prison if they perform an abortion after a heartbeat is detected or if they fail to check for one before a procedure.

The measure is the most extreme abortion restriction in the country, effectively banning the procedure before most women even realize they’re pregnant, pro-abortion rights advocates said.

“After years of passing anti-abortion laws under the guise of protecting women’s health and safety, they lay bare their true motives: to ban abortion in the state of Ohio,” said Dawn Laguens, a spokesperson for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

Ohio lawmakers have been trying to pass the “heartbeat bill” since 2011, but some activists feared that it was so extreme and unconstitutional that it could lead courts to overturn other, less stringent abortion restrictions. The Supreme Court refused to review Arkansas’ 12-week abortion ban earlier this year, which lower courts had blocked. The high court ruled in Roe v. Wade in 1973 that states are not allowed to prohibit abortions before the fetus is viable, usually around 22 to 24 weeks into the pregnancy.

Republicans said they now feel emboldened to pass the bill because President-elect Donald Trump is likely to appoint anti-abortion conservatives to the Supreme Court.

“A new president, new Supreme Court appointees change the dynamic, and there was consensus in our caucus to move forward,” Ohio Senate President Keith Faber (R-Celina) told the Columbus Dispatch.

The bill now moves to the desk of Gov. John Kasich ®. He has not indicated whether he will sign it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ohio...82e888e4fe

(I doubt that this will pass Constitutional muster).

[David Horn]

(12-06-2016, 02:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 01:34 PM)David Horn Wrote: FWIW, the entire 2nd Amendment hyper-vigilance is just so much overactive paranoia.  It lives in the RW echo chamber and feeds on itself.  At a time when violent crime is very low by historical standards, the rush to get guns and go about armed to the teeth is not only unjustified but more than a little pathological.

Now the very wealthy and famous are in a different universe; they are obvious targets.  But folks like us, we're just not that intriguing to the criminal class. I own no guns and have not felt the need to own one EVER!  Just for the record: no one has tried to rob me, enter my home without permission or even diss me in public.  How about you?

Where do you live? How many types of people live around you? How close do you live to higher crime areas? I have higher crime areas within a mile of me and major high crime areas within 15 miles of me. No one has tried to rob me yet but I know people who have been robbed or have had their homes robbed. I know people who have been roughed up and intimidated by groups of people in the area. I'm aware of armed robberies that have occurred not so far away from home.

I missed this, but feel I should respond.

First, I live in a rural area that consists primarily of "locals", who are salt-of-the-earth types primarily, and tend to be lower income.  Since there is a recreational lake in the mix, the small number of "lakers" create a thin line of prosperity along the lake's shoreline.  The lake is large (22,000 acres) and the shoreline long (550 miles), so the laker neighborhoods tend to be spread-out.  The locals outnumber the mostly expat lakers by a wide margin.

So crime should happen here, but it doesn't.  I can leave my doors unlocked and never worry about theft.  Violent crime is unheard of ... except among those who know each other well.  There will always be crimes of passion, though I can't think of a single incidence of murder or manslaughter in the general vicinity in the 15 years we've lived here.

[David Horn]

(12-07-2016, 03:52 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 05:15 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 05:08 PM)Galen Wrote: If you paid closer attention then you would realize that he isn't the only one making firearms.  There are thousands more just like him scattered through the Philippines which adds up.

It wasn't 'he'  It was 'they', and I doubt their are thousands ... or even hundreds.  Then there is the sticky issue of ammunition, which is easy except for the primer.  Even cartridge reuse is dicey after many cycles. 

Then again, anyone firing a weapon made of scrap metal already has a death wish.

Drugs seem to get manufactured and imported with out too much trouble.  I don't see ammo as an insurmountable problem.  As for the metal, figuring out which bits of scrap metal are composed of what alloy isn't hard to figure out.  One of the nice things about the M1911 is how forgiving the design is.  John Browning had to make do with worse alloys than this guy is.

Cooking meth and making gunpowder are similar in complexity, but making primers and cartridges are a lot more involved processes, and undertakings that require some specialized machinery.  Then again, we're talking about people who makes guns out of scrap metal, so risk seems to be part of the game. 

Feel free to buy one.  Shoot one at your own risk.

[The Wonkette]

(12-07-2016, 03:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: WASHINGTON― Ohio’s Republican-led House and Senate passed legislation Tuesday night that would ban abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected― as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

The measure was attached at the last minute as an amendment to an unrelated child abuse bill. It has no exceptions for rape or incest.

If it’s passed into law, physicians could face a year in prison if they perform an abortion after a heartbeat is detected or if they fail to check for one before a procedure.

The measure is the most extreme abortion restriction in the country, effectively banning the procedure before most women even realize they’re pregnant, pro-abortion rights advocates said.

“After years of passing anti-abortion laws under the guise of protecting women’s health and safety, they lay bare their true motives: to ban abortion in the state of Ohio,” said Dawn Laguens, a spokesperson for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

Does this apply even to ectopic pregnancies? Yikes!

[Eric the Green]

(12-06-2016, 04:57 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 03:23 PM)Galen Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

That is because normal people have to provide their own protection.  Always remember that when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

So your right to protect yourself, in the unlikely event you need to do so, means the rest of us have to be concerned about you.  If you are afraid of the boogieman to the extent that you need to go around armed at all times, how do you think we feel having to interact with you and your arms?  How much of a walking breathing hair trigger are you?  How can we know?

Life isn't that scary, but folks like you manage to make it worse.

Indeed; pretty scary. I am wary right now of the places where those folks live. They expressed their anger and fear peacefully at the polls, with likely very unfortunate results. How else can they express it?

[Warren Dew]

(12-09-2016, 04:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 04:57 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 03:23 PM)Galen Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

That is because normal people have to provide their own protection.  Always remember that when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

So your right to protect yourself, in the unlikely event you need to do so, means the rest of us have to be concerned about you.  If you are afraid of the boogieman to the extent that you need to go around armed at all times, how do you think we feel having to interact with you and your arms?  How much of a walking breathing hair trigger are you?  How can we know?

Life isn't that scary, but folks like you manage to make it worse.

Indeed; pretty scary. I am wary right now of the places where those folks live. They expressed their anger and fear peacefully at the polls, with likely very unfortunate results. How else can they express it?

You folks on the left are way too paranoid.  The more law abiding gun owners there are in my neighborhood, the less crime, and the safer I feel.

[Eric the Green]

(12-09-2016, 05:25 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-09-2016, 04:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 04:57 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 03:23 PM)Galen Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

That is because normal people have to provide their own protection.  Always remember that when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

So your right to protect yourself, in the unlikely event you need to do so, means the rest of us have to be concerned about you.  If you are afraid of the boogieman to the extent that you need to go around armed at all times, how do you think we feel having to interact with you and your arms?  How much of a walking breathing hair trigger are you?  How can we know?

Life isn't that scary, but folks like you manage to make it worse.

Indeed; pretty scary. I am wary right now of the places where those folks live. They expressed their anger and fear peacefully at the polls, with likely very unfortunate results. How else can they express it?

You folks on the left are way too paranoid.  The more law abiding gun owners there are in my neighborhood, the less crime, and the safer I feel.

And you and I live in different realities. I know in my California Silicon Valley neighborhood, there are few if any guns around, and even fewer crazy nuts permitted to have them, and I know that the fewer guns there are, the less crime, and the safer I feel.

For you libertarians, violence is the answer, although you loudly insist that the non-coercion principle is the answer. But your beliefs are phony and deceptive. Your phony philosophy is the worst deception ever pulled on the American people. It is the biggest BIG LIE of our times.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-09-2016, 05:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-09-2016, 05:25 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-09-2016, 04:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 04:57 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 03:23 PM)Galen Wrote: That is because normal people have to provide their own protection.  Always remember that when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

So your right to protect yourself, in the unlikely event you need to do so, means the rest of us have to be concerned about you.  If you are afraid of the boogieman to the extent that you need to go around armed at all times, how do you think we feel having to interact with you and your arms?  How much of a walking breathing hair trigger are you?  How can we know?

Life isn't that scary, but folks like you manage to make it worse.

Indeed; pretty scary. I am wary right now of the places where those folks live. They expressed their anger and fear peacefully at the polls, with likely very unfortunate results. How else can they express it?

You folks on the left are way too paranoid.  The more law abiding gun owners there are in my neighborhood, the less crime, and the safer I feel.

And you and I live in different realities. I know in my California Silicon Valley neighborhood, there are few if any guns around, and even fewer crazy nuts permitted to have them, and I know that the fewer guns there are, the less crime, and the safer I feel.

For you libertarians, violence is the answer, although you loudly insist that the non-coercion principle is the answer. But your beliefs are phony and deceptive. Your phony philosophy is the worst deception ever pulled on the American people. It is the biggest BIG LIE of our times.

You don't see the guns but I'm sure there's lots of them around you. Libertarians value self defense, recognize an individuals right to defend them self and aren't opposed to the use violence for self defense. I've told you many times and pointed out to you many times, if liberals do this and support that then libertarians will begin do this and support that as a consequence for your actions. You don't want to do something stupid or be associated with stupid stuff that turns the libertarians against you. Libertarians are the protectors/defenders of your freedoms. Your freedoms are extension of their freedoms. You don't seem to know/grasp how aggressive your side has been acting and comes across to others. I'm not concerned about you personally or scared of you personally. I've already determined long ago that I'm more than able to defeat you one on one, if/when it ever becomes necessary.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-09-2016, 05:25 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-09-2016, 04:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 04:57 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 03:23 PM)Galen Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

That is because normal people have to provide their own protection.  Always remember that when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

So your right to protect yourself, in the unlikely event you need to do so, means the rest of us have to be concerned about you.  If you are afraid of the boogieman to the extent that you need to go around armed at all times, how do you think we feel having to interact with you and your arms?  How much of a walking breathing hair trigger are you?  How can we know?

Life isn't that scary, but folks like you manage to make it worse.

Indeed; pretty scary. I am wary right now of the places where those folks live. They expressed their anger and fear peacefully at the polls, with likely very unfortunate results. How else can they express it?

You folks on the left are way too paranoid.  The more law abiding gun owners there are in my neighborhood, the less crime, and the safer I feel.

If Eric visited my neighborhood, he wouldn't know that he's in a heavily armed neighborhood.

[Eric the Green]

(12-10-2016, 02:16 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-09-2016, 05:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-09-2016, 05:25 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-09-2016, 04:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 04:57 PM)David Horn Wrote: So your right to protect yourself, in the unlikely event you need to do so, means the rest of us have to be concerned about you.  If you are afraid of the boogieman to the extent that you need to go around armed at all times, how do you think we feel having to interact with you and your arms?  How much of a walking breathing hair trigger are you?  How can we know?

Life isn't that scary, but folks like you manage to make it worse.

Indeed; pretty scary. I am wary right now of the places where those folks live. They expressed their anger and fear peacefully at the polls, with likely very unfortunate results. How else can they express it?

You folks on the left are way too paranoid.  The more law abiding gun owners there are in my neighborhood, the less crime, and the safer I feel.

And you and I live in different realities. I know in my California Silicon Valley neighborhood, there are few if any guns around, and even fewer crazy nuts permitted to have them, and I know that the fewer guns there are, the less crime, and the safer I feel.

For you libertarians, violence is the answer, although you loudly insist that the non-coercion principle is the answer. But your beliefs are phony and deceptive. Your phony philosophy is the worst deception ever pulled on the American people. It is the biggest BIG LIE of our times.

You don't see the guns but I'm sure there's lots of them around you. Libertarians value self defense, recognize an individuals right to defend them self and aren't opposed to the use violence for self defense. I've told you many times and pointed out to you many times, if liberals do this and support that then libertarians will begin do this and support that as a consequence for your actions. You don't want to do something stupid or be associated with stupid stuff that turns the libertarians against you. Libertarians are the protectors/defenders of your freedoms. Your freedoms are extension of their freedoms. You don't seem to know/grasp how aggressive your side has been acting and comes across to others. I'm not concerned about you personally or scared of you personally. I've already determined long ago that I'm more than able to defeat you one on one, if/when it ever becomes necessary.

I wish I could understand you guys from Trumpland a little better. I wonder if there's something more in your minds than just deceptive ideas and fears. What could make you this way? I don't know.

I certainly don't feel protected by libertarians, particularly not because they preserve my freedom to own a gun. There is no need for self-defense with a gun except in a thoroughly barbarous and violent world. Since I don't inhabit that world, and never have in my over 60 years, I have no need for that type of self-defense. Yet you say if I went to your neighborhood, I wouldn't see your guns. Even though it's an open carry state. But underneath the hidden guns, since you feel the need for them, there must be a strong and dangerous undercurrent of violence. If that weren't so, why the need for defense?

I'm sure you could defeat me one on one with your gun. But even Hamilton's duel with Burr was illegal, and he was almost charged with murder. I doubt you really want to go down that road. There is no need to be afraid of people like me on any level, or for you to be mad at us or turn against us.

You guys are the ones threatening us. Libertarians don't protect me; they threaten me. You want to take away our precious beaches and forests. Nature is what sustains our bodies and our spirits. It is truly a danger that you want to destroy it. If you claim that you don't, then you don't understand how your votes and your views do just that. You don't see who Trump is appointing at all, or what it means. I am a Green. What I see that needs protecting, is not my liberty to own a gun or pay less taxes to freeloaders. It is Nature that needs protecting, and the opportunity for all people to have a decent life. And you want to take away the social security and medicare from me and others, that I paid for.

You can afford to pay a bit more in taxes, if you earn enough money to afford this. That is no threat to you. Poor people getting help is no threat to you. We aren't going to take your guns away from you by force as long as you really feel you want them. I only seek to persuade folks like you that you don't need them. That is no threat to you.