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

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-23-2018, 03:17 PM)David Horn Wrote: I know this sounds like values lock to you, but I know from some limited experience that chaos and mayhem are pretty well coordinated.  When I attended the Special Forces Training Center in Okinawa, one of the NCOs made damn sure we were aware that a trainee had been shot by accident just a week or two earlier.  We got the full lecture about training with live ammo, which we did the next day.  Even in a training environment, surprises happened that could have been deadly.  I saw accidental discharges up close and personal when I was in Vietnam, so there's that too.  None of that belongs in school.

Even seasoned soldiers in combat shoot one another occasionally.  If this is the way to avoid addressing the gun problem directly, it's a piss poor alternative.  How would you like to be the teacher who shot a student by accident?  How would you like to be the student?

So let me call you on your own values lock.  If you've never been there, how do you know?

Yes, it does involve values lock.  Values locked people tend to remember and make of great importance episodic incidents that confirm their values.  Thus, such incidents are nigh on useless in resolving the question.  A red values person might remember how many well equipped, trained sane folk overcome the lone nut.  Indeed, one of the people who had been in Iraq, who ran towards the explosions at the Boston Marathon incident, came quite to the opposite conclusion to yours.  People have to be trained, equipped and motivated for the good to triumph.  Those who avoid responsibility and being ready for the unthinkable will become helpless victims.

There are relatively few who will listen to either extreme argument, making the good guys ready while putting the bad guys at risk.  I do not doubt you are sincere or intelligent, but there are sincere and intelligent people who have also been there and done that who quite disagree with your selective truth.

In this case, I have no real life experience, but I am inclined to listen to and respect both sides.

[Eric the Green]

I imagine there will be more armed guards on school campuses. If they are visible, they might deter a nutcase or two. But there were guards, drills, everything imaginable at the Parkland school, and mistakes were still made. Making schools into guarded armed camps is only a consequence of our Second Amendment gun culture, and our outsized presence of guns. The USA has created gun violence mayhem with its policies, and its youth are now crying out for change in those policies. I hope they are ready to reckon with the extreme right-wing values lock in this country, which is 10 times more locked and 10 times more wrong than any left wing values lock is.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-24-2018, 01:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I imagine there will be more armed guards on school campuses. If they are visible, they might deter a nutcase or two. But there were guards, drills, everything imaginable at the Parkland school, and mistakes were still made. Making schools into guarded armed camps is only a consequence of our Second Amendment gun culture, and our outsized presence of guns. The USA has created gun violence mayhem with its policies, and its youth are now crying out for change in those policies. I hope they are ready to reckon with the extreme right-wing values lock in this country, which is 10 times more locked and 10 times more wrong than any left wing values lock is.

But you have to correct based on the mistakes made.  

One mistake was that the future shooter was identified but the officials did not take action.  The correction?  Take action more often, with more sensitivity to the facts.  

A second mistake was in hiring guards who did not believe in doing their job.    This was a job that has much inaction, but you have to be ready to act with little warning.  Who do you hire?

Neither mistake was related to the red gun culture, but was more apt to be the lack of responsibility, the lack of action.  There was a surplus, in this case, of blue.  This doesn't mean it is impossible to go the other way.

A third not-a-mistake would be to blame the shooters choice to become a shooter on the gun culture.  I would blame it also on social media technology combined with a human tendency to shun the outsider.  Millennial folk seem to be developing more of a habit of shooting other Millennials.  Why?  What can be done about it?  Ban certain TV shows and movies?  Don't glorify violence as much in the news?  Step on what parts of the culture that glorify violence?  What did the shooter see that led him to do what he did?  Can we eliminate it?

There is more to it than prohibition.  One should look at all solutions, not follow your values lock into pushing for things that haven't worked.

[David Horn]

(02-23-2018, 07:51 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Yes, it does involve values lock.  Values locked people tend to remember and make of great importance episodic incidents that confirm their values.  Thus, such incidents are nigh on useless in resolving the question.  A red values person might remember how many well equipped, trained sane folk overcome the lone nut.  Indeed, one of the people who had been in Iraq, who ran towards the explosions at the Boston Marathon incident, came quite to the opposite conclusion to yours.  People have to be trained, equipped and motivated for the good to triumph.  Those who avoid responsibility and being ready for the unthinkable will become helpless victims.

There are relatively few who will listen to either extreme argument, making the good guys ready while putting the bad guys at risk.  I do not doubt you are sincere or intelligent, but there are sincere and intelligent people who have also been there and done that who quite disagree with your selective truth.

In this case, I have no real life experience, but I am inclined to listen to and respect both sides.

Let's skip the subjective and talk objective fact.  We are awash in firearms, and now have at least 5 Million (estimates run as high as 10 Million) assault weapons in private hands.  We don't register weapons in almost all jurisdictions, so who has them is an unknown.  We are also unique in the number of gun related deaths.  We are singular in the number of mass shootings, most of them involving assault weapons.  We are also unique in how we place gun ownership in the category of rights rather than privileges.  None of this is arguable. 

I don't claim to know how this gets resolved, but I do know that failure to bend insures a break point in the future.  There is now an entire generation that has never known a time where school shootings did not occur, and they are the largest generation in our history.  I also know that they are finally getting mad enough and active enough to demand change, though what that will be is open to conjecture.  At some point, this becomes an undeniable force, though I might not be around to see it.  Will they force the issue to the point that the 2nd Amendment is eliminated?  It's a constitutional option if the will is there.  

The NRA has overplayed a weak hand for the past decade or two.  When 97% of gun owners want mandatory background checks and the NRA responds with demagoguery, as Wayne LaPierre did at CPAC, it only increase the anger building on the other side.  If I favored gun rights, I might be looking for a compromise position, but they continue to fight every act as "the first step on a slippery slope".  

Stay tuned.

[David Horn]

(02-24-2018, 09:27 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-24-2018, 01:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I imagine there will be more armed guards on school campuses. If they are visible, they might deter a nutcase or two. But there were guards, drills, everything imaginable at the Parkland school, and mistakes were still made. Making schools into guarded armed camps is only a consequence of our Second Amendment gun culture, and our outsized presence of guns. The USA has created gun violence mayhem with its policies, and its youth are now crying out for change in those policies. I hope they are ready to reckon with the extreme right-wing values lock in this country, which is 10 times more locked and 10 times more wrong than any left wing values lock is.

But you have to correct based on the mistakes made.  

One mistake was that the future shooter was identified but the officials did not take action.  The correction?  Take action more often, with more sensitivity to the facts.  

A second mistake was in hiring guards who did not believe in doing their job.    This was a job that has much inaction, but you have to be ready to act with little warning.  Who do you hire?

Neither mistake was related to the red gun culture, but was more apt to be the lack of responsibility, the lack of action.  There was a surplus, in this case, of blue.  This doesn't mean it is impossible to go the other way.

A third not-a-mistake would be to blame the shooters choice to become a shooter on the gun culture.  I would blame it also on social media technology combined with a human tendency to shun the outsider.  Millennial folk seem to be developing more of a habit of shooting other Millennials.  Why?  What can be done about it?  Ban certain TV shows and movies?  Don't glorify violence as much in the news?  Step on what parts of the culture that glorify violence?  What did the shooter see that led him to do what he did?  Can we eliminate it?

There is more to it than prohibition.  One should look at all solutions, not follow your values lock into pushing for things that haven't worked.

OK, but what can be done?  Guards facing certain death, but still willing to step into the fray, are rare.  There are too many schools in the US to make a blanket assumption that those individuals are available and willing.  This seems like a non-answer.  There is also the problem of optics.  What are we teaching our children if they have to attend Fort Everywhere Middle School?  Will they become model citizens or just paranoid autobots serving their future employers?  Personally, I find that reprehensible.

It's interesting that Australians have made the argument that their solution won't work here, because they were never a gun-loving culture.  Maybe that's our real problem, and one that will only be resolved by changing cultural norms.

[Eric the Green]

(02-24-2018, 09:27 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-24-2018, 01:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I imagine there will be more armed guards on school campuses. If they are visible, they might deter a nutcase or two. But there were guards, drills, everything imaginable at the Parkland school, and mistakes were still made. Making schools into guarded armed camps is only a consequence of our Second Amendment gun culture, and our outsized presence of guns. The USA has created gun violence mayhem with its policies, and its youth are now crying out for change in those policies. I hope they are ready to reckon with the extreme right-wing values lock in this country, which is 10 times more locked and 10 times more wrong than any left wing values lock is.

But you have to correct based on the mistakes made.  

One mistake was that the future shooter was identified but the officials did not take action.  The correction?  Take action more often, with more sensitivity to the facts.  

A second mistake was in hiring guards who did not believe in doing their job.    This was a job that has much inaction, but you have to be ready to act with little warning.  Who do you hire?

Neither mistake was related to the red gun culture, but was more apt to be the lack of responsibility, the lack of action.  There was a surplus, in this case, of blue.  This doesn't mean it is impossible to go the other way.

A third not-a-mistake would be to blame the shooters choice to become a shooter on the gun culture.  I would blame it also on social media technology combined with a human tendency to shun the outsider.  Millennial folk seem to be developing more of a habit of shooting other Millennials.  Why?  What can be done about it?  Ban certain TV shows and movies?  Don't glorify violence as much in the news?  Step on what parts of the culture that glorify violence?  What did the shooter see that led him to do what he did?  Can we eliminate it?

There is more to it than prohibition.  One should look at all solutions, not follow your values lock into pushing for things that haven't worked.

David's answers were correct, of course. Also, no gun advocates say that guns and gun culture are the only reason for mass shootings; just the main one. My points above still stand too. And there's no way to know if a hired guard will do his duty. The only reason we need guards at schools is because of the prevalence of guns, and the opposition of the NRA and the GOP to age limits on purchasing weapons. How dumb can a culture get to permit that? Even FL Gov. Rick Scott, who has an A+ NRA rating, is feeling the heat and now proposing these age limits. He wants to be elected senator, so he's growing a brain.

Glorifying violence in the USA is not new to millennials. This has been a perennial American and human problem, but other cultures have developed beyond it. A principle reason the USA has not, is because of our gun culture and our Second Amendment, which is outdated and wrongly interpreted in Heller. Millennials have just been given more-deadly weapons.

Gun control works. Your values lock is the only reason you persist in making statements about "things that haven't worked." Clearly, in this case having an armed guard on campus didn't work.

[Bob Butler 54]

I agree that the NRA has overplayed its hand.  However, they are preaching to the convinced.  They are focusing on gun owners and the gun industry, folk who have reason to belong and feel under siege.  They will continue to feed and feed off of a bubble, and as Nebraska did, call the bubble America.  A lot of people are not voicing their opinions in the wake of another incident, are expecting the red politicians know the will of their people, that while the blue people will spout their opinions, nothing will be done.

So, the blue are convinced of their world view, but the reality so far is what?

I would agree that cultural norms will have to change if a too large percentage of people are rejected so much that the normal inhibitions against using force are frequently bypassed.  (See On Killing.)  People enjoy the presentation of violence, though, on TV, in the movies, and in the news media.  People are unwilling to take the action necessary to change the culture.  There is good reason.  I don't want government censors limiting fantasy role playing any more that the average person wants government censors in Hollywood.

[Eric the Green]

[pbrower2a]

The Founding Fathers were wise for their time, but we need remember that they lived in pre-industrial times. Commercial, yes, but also pre-industrial. They had no clue about Big Business, the first Big Business being formed as such (DuPont) was founded in 1802. They had no idea of railroads, telegraphs (let alone modern mas and personal communications). and -- most germane to the Second Amendment -- machine guns.

The Second Amendment arose in a time of flintlock rifles, weapons that would be completely useless as a defense against some meth fiend with his beloved Glock.

[Eric the Green]

Cameron Kasky, founder of NeverAgainMSD, puts it to lilly-livered little Marco. Guess who was the real adult on stage?

https://heavy.com/news/2018/02/cameron-k...ok-who-is/

David Hogg explains how his generation can turn around gun violence:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...un-control

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-24-2018, 02:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Founding Fathers were wise for their time, but we need remember that they lived in pre-industrial times. Commercial, yes, but also pre-industrial. They had no clue about Big Business, the first Big Business being formed as such (DuPont) was founded in 1802. They had no idea of railroads, telegraphs (let alone modern mas and personal communications). and -- most germane to the Second Amendment -- machine guns.

The Second Amendment arose in a time of flintlock rifles, weapons that would be completely useless as a defense against some meth fiend with his beloved Glock.

I agree the founding fathers had a different culture, but that culture is alive and well in red America.  You seem to want to change a contract when the blue want to change it.

[Eric the Green]

(02-24-2018, 05:48 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-24-2018, 02:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Founding Fathers were wise for their time, but we need remember that they lived in pre-industrial times. Commercial, yes, but also pre-industrial. They had no clue about Big Business, the first Big Business being formed as such (DuPont) was founded in 1802. They had no idea of railroads, telegraphs (let alone modern mas and personal communications). and -- most germane to the Second Amendment -- machine guns.

The Second Amendment arose in a time of flintlock rifles, weapons that would be completely useless as a defense against some meth fiend with his beloved Glock.

I agree the founding fathers had a different culture, but that culture is alive and well in red America.  You seem to want to change a contract when the blue want to change it.

It's quite different, just in the fact that the weapons are different as pbrower2a said. And red culture not only has all those big business industries and corporations in its midst, but red culture is the culture that supports their desire to exploit and control every one of us.

Blue culture is right; red culture is wrong and regressive. Blue culture needs to prevail over the red, at least well enough so that policies (or the "contract," in your words) are changed and the nation can progress again after our 40-year stall.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-24-2018, 05:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-24-2018, 05:48 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-24-2018, 02:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Founding Fathers were wise for their time, but we need remember that they lived in pre-industrial times. Commercial, yes, but also pre-industrial. They had no clue about Big Business, the first Big Business being formed as such (DuPont) was founded in 1802. They had no idea of railroads, telegraphs (let alone modern mas and personal communications). and -- most germane to the Second Amendment -- machine guns.

The Second Amendment arose in a time of flintlock rifles, weapons that would be completely useless as a defense against some meth fiend with his beloved Glock.

I agree the founding fathers had a different culture, but that culture is alive and well in red America.  You seem to want to change a contract when the blue want to change it.

It's quite different, just in the fact that the weapons are different as pbrower2a said. And red culture not only has all those big business industries and corporations in its midst, but red culture is the culture that supports their desire to exploit and control every one of us.

Blue culture is right; red culture is wrong and regressive. Blue culture needs to prevail over the red, at least well enough so that policies (or the "contract," in your words) are changed and the nation can progress again after our 40-year stall.

To the blue people...

Well, first, I must say on this issue I have flipped.  I grew up liberal, just south of Boston, and ate up the gun prohibition policies of those around me.  Never mind that is wasn't working.  That was the heyday of lead in gasoline.  The inhibitions against killing were low, resulting in a huge surge in violent crime which the oil and automobile industries are avoiding paying for.  On most issues I am as blue as you like, but here I have looked into it, and have seen how eager and ready folks are to allocate blame, to advocate one size fits all easy answers.

By race, most races fit nicely in the bell curve of the developed mostly European countries with different gun policies.  Black and on black crime are the exception.  Yet, the blue will blame the gun policies rather than working the race issue.  It's hypocrisy in action.  How do you divert attention from the real cause?   How do you expect to solve a problem if you are addressing the wrong cause?

The founding fathers mad it exceptionally difficult to change the Constitution.  It takes a supermajority of states to ratify amendments or the results of a constitutional convention.  Except when blue values are invoked?  I see the prudence of rule of law, of not letting part of the country dictate the values of another.  The Bill of Rights does just that.  It declares and enforces the basic values of the time.  I agree that these values should not be changed lightly.

I am at heart blue.  We live closely enough together to help one another.  Many problems I see as best solved be cooperating, by letting professionals handle things, and many times the government is the best agent for the People to act together.

But that doesn't mean I can't see the red perspective.  In some parts of the country, people are further apart.  If you want something done, you handle it yourself.  Self reliance is good.  The government can be seen as a threat.  It is best for people far away to stay far away and not meddle.  If the government is far enough away to be slow, you need the right equipment.  The founding fathers said they would have it.  The founding fathers were wise.  Hooray for the red, white and blue.

It is the far away strange people that have funny notions.

[Eric the Green]

This philosophy of self-reliance in what we now call red states and red counties did not used to interfere with sensible notions of government acting to help and protect the people. They voted for Democrats like FDR to fix the economy and the eroded land, and bring energy to the Tennessee Valley, and they appreciated them. They supported JFK and LBJ when they acted to help reduce poverty in Appalachia, and brought good lighting and plumbing to the rural people. Gun control was accepted, and so was the qualifications clause of the 2nd in the Courts that were appointed by the presidents they voted for. They supported populists in the 1890s when they wanted to be able to pay their debts and stop being exploited by the railroad barons, and they supported progressives in the 1900s and 1910s when they acted to rein in the monopolies and the trusts and create the income tax. In the North they supported Lincoln when he got the government to invest in their lands and help settlers.

Red culture today is not the culture of the founding fathers; not even a little bit. The founding fathers knew that their country would be changing; that the constitution was amendable. They designed checks and balances because they knew that tyranny had to be guarded against. They knew the state needed to be protected, and so did the people need to be protected from excessive state power.

Red culture today accepts conspiracy theory nonsense without the slightest reflection. Red culture today wants everyone to carry weapons hundreds of times more fast and powerful than those the original militia carried. Red culture today accepts crazy religious doctrines without question that would have horrified the founding fathers. Red culture today supports blindly the right of corporations and big business to mercilessly exploit workers, rip off consumers, destroy the environment, and ruin our economy, all in the name of less taxes, self-reliance and free-enterprise. Red culture supports a president who doesn't have the slightest qualification for the job and who wishes to destroy our country and start a world war. Red culture today expects us to salute the flag and support wars without the slightest thought, as if our country was always right, and then in the same breath want to stockpile weapons of war against the country they claim to support. Red culture supports the right of the police to shoot down young people without cause, as long as they are black. Red culture supports bad eating and bad smoking habits, and then insults hippies who want a freer lifestyle and preaches self-reliance in the face of people who want their government to act on behalf of the people. Red culture today is the most dangerous group of deluded fools that the Western World has EVER produced. We face this fact as a nation, and some reds wake up from their sleep, or we die as a nation-- AND SOON!

[Eric the Green]

Remember when I was raked over the coals on the old forum page because I liked the music and the personality of a 17-year old? I was smitten, and I was so happy that a 16-year old kid could make the best pop music recording in almost 40 years-- and it has not been surpassed since, even by himself. You know who I mean.

Well, am I smitten again? I like this kid who is getting so much crap, just like Justin did, on his you tube videos. It's just because he's so good at speaking out for his buddies at school, and saying #NeverAgain to shootings, saying politicians must take action. And he's a skilled video and film maker and student journalist at Marjory Stoneman Douglas school. This video shows his cool and his charm, but it gets a bunch of dislikes by alt-right trolls who rush in because they want their assinine "gun rights." Just like Justin got the most dislikes ever on you tube, just because a young guy who was young for his age had a good hit record. As Justin said, "all the haters I swear look so small from up here"





His famous video about an argument of a lifeguard with his friend is on his channel, it has 742,000 views now.

David Hogg's channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpMMcYV...A11vBnFngQ

standing up for his friend against a stupidass "lifeguard"
https://youtu.be/lhMNNaTwsyM

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-24-2018, 07:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: This philosophy of self-reliance in what we now call red states and red counties did not used to interfere with sensible notions of government acting to help and protect the people. They voted for Democrats like FDR to fix the economy and the eroded land, and bring energy to the Tennessee Valley, and they appreciated them. They supported JFK and LBJ when they acted to help reduce poverty in Appalachia, and brought good lighting and plumbing to the rural people. Gun control was accepted, and so was the qualifications clause of the 2nd in the Courts that were appointed by the presidents they voted for...

Well, I was in many ways with Eric.  One difference is that he does not acknowledge what he calls the qualification clause as a justifications clause.  In this, I close to follow the label and intent of Professor Volokh of UCLA from "The Commonplace Second Amendment", one of the many Standard Model articles.  There were many Jim Crow Supreme Court cases that removed many aspects of the Bill of Rights after the Reconstruction ended.  Most Jim Crow rulings were annulled by Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP during the middle of the 20th century.  Volokh finds other examples of rights with justification clauses used during the Founding Era.  What is common is an absurd results manifesting if you go with Jim Crow, and an interpretation never touched by the courts in the other cases.

And, yes, the I am very much blue on many issues.  As a crisis approaches, it is common for one party to cling to the past.  They clung to things like slavery during the Civil War era, and Laissez Faire economics during the Gilded Age.  Much that was clung to is best left in the past, where Lincoln and FDR left it.

But this does not mean accepting bad law or abandoning the meaning to be found in the Constitution.  It was easy if morally bankrupt in the 19th century to pretend or believe that slaves deserved exemption from the Whig quest for equality under law.  It was easy if morally bankrupt to push reprehensible working conditions during the Gilded Age on workers who had no real choice but to accept.  It is morally bankrupt to pretend or believe we are not warming the globe, destroying what future generations will very much covet.

But it also means you don't have to demonize those who think and live differently than you.  As crisis approaches, it is natural to demonize.  Eric provides a good example.  I do not see the red as evil, insane, twisted or other.  They are clinging to an old culture that fits well with their environment.  I sympathize with them a lot.  It is easy to see Washington DC as corrupt, as following the corporations rather than the People.  It is easy to see them wishing just to be left alone, if blue folks from far away don't tell them what to do.  They are in many ways understandable.

You don't have to demonize to understand.  In this the red are correct when they say the blue are not listening.

Eric sure isn't.

[David Horn]

(02-24-2018, 05:48 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-24-2018, 02:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Founding Fathers were wise for their time, but we need remember that they lived in pre-industrial times. Commercial, yes, but also pre-industrial. They had no clue about Big Business, the first Big Business being formed as such (DuPont) was founded in 1802. They had no idea of railroads, telegraphs (let alone modern mas and personal communications). and -- most germane to the Second Amendment -- machine guns.

The Second Amendment arose in a time of flintlock rifles, weapons that would be completely useless as a defense against some meth fiend with his beloved Glock.

I agree the founding fathers had a different culture, but that culture is alive and well in red America.  You seem to want to change a contract when the blue want to change it.

I don't think the culture of the late 18th century and red culture today resemble each other at all.  The only link: red culture idealizes: "the Founders" in a way that makes them unrecognizably rigid and absolutist.  The red overlay is closer to a nihilistic version of libertarianism.  They celebrate "freedom", as long as it's THEIR freedom: guns, yes; prayer, yes; abortion, no (actually, hell no), and patriotism as they define it ... and only as they define it.  I live deep in Red America.  I have friends that hold these views.  They feel free to tell me how I should think, but act hurt and angry if their values are questioned even a little.  It's your value-lock problem on steroids.

And let's understand: this is not an issue of "both sides do it", even though both sides rally to their respective flags.  This is "We're right and you are evil" compared to "We don't agree".

[pbrower2a]

(02-25-2018, 10:16 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-24-2018, 05:48 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-24-2018, 02:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Founding Fathers were wise for their time, but we need remember that they lived in pre-industrial times. Commercial, yes, but also pre-industrial. They had no clue about Big Business, the first Big Business being formed as such (DuPont) was founded in 1802. They had no idea of railroads, telegraphs (let alone modern mass and personal communications). and -- most germane to the Second Amendment -- machine guns.

The Second Amendment arose in a time of flintlock rifles, weapons that would be completely useless as a defense against some meth fiend with his beloved Glock.

I agree the founding fathers had a different culture, but that culture is alive and well in red America.  You seem to want to change a contract when the blue want to change it.

I don't think the culture of the late 18th century and red culture today resemble each other at all.  The only link: red culture idealizes: "the Founders" in a way that makes them unrecognizably rigid and absolutist.  The red overlay is closer to a nihilistic version of libertarianism.  They celebrate "freedom", as long as it's THEIR freedom: guns, yes; prayer, yes; abortion, no (actually, hell no), and patriotism as they define it ... and only as they define it.  I live deep in Red America.  I have friends that hold these views.  They feel free to tell me how I should think, but act hurt and angry if their values are questioned even a little.  It's your value-lock problem on steroids.

And let's understand: this is not an issue of "both sides do it", even though both sides rally to their respective flags.  This is "We're right and you are evil" compared to "We don't agree".

But we are headed to another 1T, an inherently conservative time. But before current conservatives of the National Rifle Association and a Republican Party that seems to have an agenda reminiscent of the John Birch Society get excited about the impending new conservative era -- it won't be their style of conservatism. The conservatism will be forged in the darkest and most decisive years of the Crisis Era, and it will most likely be a rejection of much that is offered with the label conservative. It will be more parallel to the conservatism of Dwight Eisenhower (preserve and defend the New Deal from radicalism and foreign menaces) than of people who want a New Feudalism.

It will be for law and order, such being seen as necessary for economic stability and growth as well as the protection of civil liberties. It will treat legal precedent and diplomatic protocol as virtues more important than the political fad of the day. It will put thrift above immediate self-gratification. It will see education far more useful for getting economic results than will be superstition and ignorance in achieving some transitory advantage for politicians. It will confirm same-sex marriage and homosexuality as unworthy of challenge (so long as such is between consenting adults) but crack down on sexual harassment and messing with children. It might tolerate marijuana but crack down harshly upon opiates and meth. In view of the success of America's non-Christian and non-white model minorities despite difficult times for many white Christians in the economy it will promote entrepreneurialism and formal education, the former for creating the necessary wealth and the latter in part to make Americans less amenable to demagogues (I expect Donald Trump to be one of the most widely-reviled figures in America for decades.

Of course I expect a crackdown on people seen as dangerous, disloyal radicals.

If it is parallel to Eisenhower, it will have substance more resembling what Obama sought. Consider that what the New Deal types wanted was something resembling the 1950s... and by the late 1930s America was already showing portents of what the 1950s (or at least the late 1940s) would look like. I take note of a recent poll of historians (paradoxically those students of the past are the best predictors of the future) in which the liberals already saw Obama among the top ten Presidents, and even the conservatives saw him 14th.

Surely you have seen my favorite map, the one comparing elections involving Eisenhower and Obama... right?

[Classic-Xer]

(02-24-2018, 09:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Remember when I was raked over the coals on the old forum page because I liked the music and the personality of a 17-year old? I was smitten, and I was so happy that a 16-year old kid could make the best pop music recording in almost 40 years-- and it has not been surpassed since, even by himself. You know who I mean.

Well, am I smitten again? I like this kid who is getting so much crap, just like Justin did, on his you tube videos. It's just because he's so good at speaking out for his buddies at school, and saying #NeverAgain to shootings, saying politicians must take action. And he's a skilled video and film maker and student journalist at Marjory Stoneman Douglas school. This video shows his cool and his charm, but it gets a bunch of dislikes by alt-right trolls who rush in because they want their assinine "gun rights." Just like Justin got the most dislikes ever on you tube, just because a young guy who was young for his age had a good hit record. As Justin said, "all the haters I swear look so small from up here"





His famous video about an argument of a lifeguard with his friend is on his channel, it has 742,000 views now.

David Hogg's channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpMMcYV...A11vBnFngQ

standing up for his friend against a stupidass "lifeguard"
https://youtu.be/lhMNNaTwsyM

Oh, the young opportunist. Yeah, I saw him/ picked him out/ right away. My take, the dude didn't loose anyone that he truly cared about during the shooting. Yeah, he lost some classmates and saw some bodies but he didn't loose anyone important to him. Why, he's a loner too. A loner who has stable parents who lives in a stable home who grew up in a stable environment. I didn't like the dude. I've seen dudes like him before in life, in business business and in politics. Reds are so much different than blues. Reds aren't interested in making decisions for blues or taking rights away from the blues. Reds are only interested in making decisions for reds (themselves). The blues are interested in making decisions for blues, reds, purples, greens, navy blues or everyone in general. I don't think the young blue dude has been around enough to be making important decisions for me or taking away rights away from me. There's a difference between a young king who's become used to being treated like a king who was granted the title and a king who wasn't who rightfully earned his title.  Right now, we have a system in place where reds and blues are supposed to be working together and making decisions for everyone which is failing miserably. You're an example of why this is happening today.

Do you think the young blue dude (clueless blues) knows that the assault rifle ban was in place during Columbine? Did the national ban of assault rifles stop the massacre that took place at Columbine or the big shootout that took place between a couple of bank robbers and the police in the streets of LA? A shootout where the cops were out gunned because the criminals where more technologically advanced ( illegal AK-47's and body armor) than the cops and the civilians who the cops were doing their best to protect with their feeble standard issue pistols and shotguns. I don't think he or the clueless blues know this or take either of them into account prior to delivering arguments.

How does it feel taking flack from the left and the right? Do you stand a chance at over coming two older and more knowledgeable people? My issue with blues is the caliber of the primary people who make up the bulk of their target audiences. I'm not a fan of idiots. I don't cater to the feeling of idiots. I don't market idiots. I don't employ idiots. I don't get into bed with idiots. I don't make deals with idiots. I don't rely upon idiots or invest in idiots. I don't take orders from idiots. Unfortunately, you earned you way into the idiot column a long time ago. I don't own stock in blue America. I'm not associated with poverty. I'm not associated with welfare. I have no interest in Socialism or Communism or Fascism or Monarchy's or any old system associated with Europe.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-25-2018, 10:16 AM)David Horn Wrote: I don't think the culture of the late 18th century and red culture today resemble each other at all.  The only link: red culture idealizes: "the Founders" in a way that makes them unrecognizably rigid and absolutist.  The red overlay is closer to a nihilistic version of libertarianism.  They celebrate "freedom", as long as it's THEIR freedom: guns, yes; prayer, yes; abortion, no (actually, hell no), and patriotism as they define it ... and only as they define it.  I live deep in Red America.  I have friends that hold these views.  They feel free to tell me how I should think, but act hurt and angry if their values are questioned even a little.  It's your value-lock problem on steroids.

And let's understand: this is not an issue of "both sides do it", even though both sides rally to their respective flags.  This is "We're right and you are evil" compared to "We don't agree".

I have the same freedom's as you and them. We all have those freedoms: guns, prayer and speech (patriotism being expressed as we see it and define it as individuals). Whether one chooses (another freedom/right available to all of us) to use them or not is another matter relating to all of us as individuals. You don't think prayer or religion is important and you don't believe guns are still necessary these days as far as citizens are concerned and you're ok with the government getting rid  of them. What term do we use to describe people who don't seem to care about anyone else but themselves or the views of anyone else other than their own? I can think of a couple and a couple of systems too. I see one of them in your post (nihilist).

I don't have the freedom to kill an unwanted fetus like the women do now and neither do you. Abortion is a woman's right that we don't share because we're men and it's illegal for men to kill unwanted fetus's without the woman's consent. I don't care what happens to abortion, I view abortion as a woman's issue for women to decide on their own via democratically or a legal issues addressed (continued or ended in the courts) in the courts. Being I don't really care about it or place a value on it or care about whether the ones who do it end up in hell or not and so forth, I don't recognize it as an important issue and vote Republican. People killing people for their interest is still pretty common. Like I've said, we don't live in heaven and I don't vote or make decisions as if we do.