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

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-01-2018, 06:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Nature is red in blood. The human-canine partnership is effectively one bear, Big Cat, or hyena.

No. A dog and the possibility of an armed defender potentially reverses the simpler predator - prey relationship. One analyzes the situation much differently, or at least I would.

(05-01-2018, 06:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The dog that the crook knows about and for which he has a firearm ready is going to lose. But remember that if the crook does not know about the dog, then the advantage goes to the dog. A dog is usually strong enough to overpower a man three times the dog's mass. of the crook is knocked down, then the dog may have effectively separated the crook from his weapons. He will be be defending himself from bites, and not very well. Crooks often act at night, but dogs have better night vision, let alone scent and hearing. The fog knows about a crook, all too often, before the crook knows about the dog. Whoever attacks first wins.

A dog that attacks without first giving warning would be rare. If it does happen, I would expect it only when an trained, equipped and ready handler gives the dog permission. You just don't expect a dog to know the nuances of a potentially deadly situation. Instinctively, the dog's part in the relationship is to warn the crook, alert the owner, and thus defend territory.

At least in the suburbs, I would expect the dog to bark. The usual response is not incompatible with the human owner throwing a shoe. The normal response is not for the blue representative in the gun debate to stick with Truth and Reality.

For example, the fog is usually an innocent bystander. ;

[pbrower2a]

(05-02-2018, 06:00 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-01-2018, 06:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Nature is red in blood. The human-canine partnership is effectively one bear, Big Cat, or hyena.

No.  A dog and the possibility of an armed defender potentially reverses the simpler predator - prey relationship.  One analyzes the situation much differently, or at least I would.

Dog + armed defender? That's just short of the crocodile range as an object of fear by most creatures. Man included!

Criminals dread the K-9 unit, as said one correctional officer of convicted offenders. There's no hiding place. Cops compete to be assigned to K-9 units.

(05-01-2018, 06:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The dog that the crook knows about and for which he has a firearm ready is going to lose. But remember that if the crook does not know about the dog, then the advantage goes to the dog. A dog is usually strong enough to overpower a man three times the dog's mass. of the crook is knocked down, then the dog may have effectively separated the crook from his weapons. He will be be defending himself from bites, and not very well. Crooks often act at night, but dogs have better night vision, let alone scent and hearing. The (d)og knows about a crook, all too often, before the crook knows about the dog. Whoever attacks first wins.

A dog that attacks without first giving warning would be rare.  If it does happen, I would expect it only when an trained, equipped and ready handler gives the dog permission.  You just don't expect a dog to know the nuances of a potentially deadly situation.  Instinctively, the dog's part in the relationship is to warn the crook, alert the owner, and thus defend territory.

At least in the suburbs, I would expect the dog to bark.  The usual response is not incompatible with the human owner throwing a shoe.  The normal response is not for the blue representative in the gun debate to stick with Truth and Reality.

For example, the fog is usually an innocent bystander.  ;[/quote]

Typo corrected. The usual dog is likely to bark.. but that is a good deterrent to crime. The trained attack dog is trained to attack like a leopard. If dogs don't know all the nuances of a potentially-dangerous situation, it might know enough. The most obvious is violation of territory or at the least the assumed space of a loved one. Dogs are good at noticing furtive and devious behavior in people -- behavior normally abnormal in human relations. Dogs may be well behaved, but man had better act honorably in their presence.

Sure, no dog is a match for a gun pointed at it, but a solid bite to a wrist can force the crook to drop a weapon, after which the outcome of the encounter is not so obvious. Severe bites and scratches are good cause to try to escape a dangerous and unpredictable animal.

[Classic-Xer]

(05-02-2018, 05:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Dogs don't have to be 'professionally trained' to be deterrents. A crook has to be 'professionally trained' to be able to confront every dog that he might encounter. The trained attack dog is as much a master of stealth as a leopard, and in a confrontation with a criminal it is almost as effective. Almost -- because a criminal has everything to lose in the encounter, but unlike an encounter with a leopard the crook is likely to survive. If one is a rapist looking for a victim, a woman with a canine companion is a non-target.  

Dogs are not innocuous wimps. They are predators and excellent defenders. That is the wolf heritage. They are simply the best-behaved of large animals capable of killing and eating people.  Dogs are like humans in being able to defend themselves or loved ones (the dog becomes a family member, and a human family has much the same structure as a wolf pack) even if untrained for such a role.

I lived in a high-crime area in college -- but from my understanding, crooks left us college students alone. Why? Because we knew how to carry car keys. We also had heavy college textbooks that made excellent blunt-force weapons.  We also went in groups. We were excellent witnesses for the prosecution in the event of a crime. We may have been comparatively liberal, but we were the sorts who reported people looking into parked cars for valuables or car keys.  Our reputations followed us. Crooks picked other victims, especially drunks and dopers, to victimize.

Well, you have a right to choose to have a dog for defense like you seem to prefer and the right choose to have a gun for defense like me and the right to choose to have both them like me too. Thank God, we still live in America. As a general rule, petty crooks don't mess with guys unless they're armed or the guy is obviously inebriated and unable to put up a fight.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-03-2018, 05:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, you have a right to choose to have a dog for defense like you seem to prefer and the right choose to have a gun for defense like me and the right to choose to have both them like me too. Thank God, we still live in America.

The problem is that both factions are trying to force their life style and approach to defense on the other. The blues seek criminals who cannot acquire a weapon. The reds seek the traditional ability to defend one's self, family and community. Both are desirable goals from my point of view, but many see the weapons as available or unavailable to all. There is a perception that if the other guy's goal is achieved, one is frustrated in achieving one's own goal.

[Eric the Green]

(05-03-2018, 06:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-03-2018, 05:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, you have a right to choose to have a dog for defense like you seem to prefer and the right choose to have a gun for defense like me and the right to choose to have both them like me too. Thank God, we still live in America.

The problem is that both factions are trying to force their life style and approach to defense on the other.  The blues seek criminals who cannot acquire a weapon.  The reds seek the traditional ability to defend one's self, family and community.  Both are desirable goals from my point of view, but many see the weapons as available or unavailable to all.   There is a perception that if the other guy's goal is achieved, one is frustrated in achieving one's own goal.

I might have that perception, and I suppose therefore you can say that "there is a perception" of that, even though I recognize the need to compromise. But on the blue side, as the blue side and I keep pointing out to no apparent avail, you can hardly find any gun control advocates who want to force their lifestyle on the other side. They still support the second amendment and non-military gun ownership for qualified folks. Meanwhile, the reds (and especially the NRA leadership and all who support their policies) DO want to stop people who live in cities awash in guns from regulating them.

There is this catch, though; the blues also advocate that the guns be stored where criminals can't readily steal them. That is the upshot of "The blues seek criminals who cannot acquire a weapon." And that makes it harder for a gun to provide defense. I suppose a dog's or an alarm's warning might avail some possibility of time for unlocking and loading a weapon for defense. It's still a risky and unpredictable situation.

Risky to your self, your family, and a perceived intruder who may turn out to be harmless, and thus risky for you becoming a criminal for shooting him or her. And risky for you too if you lose self-control or your ethics and you become a criminal yourself. Risky too whenever the gun becomes unlocked and loaded for any other reason.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-03-2018, 10:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Meanwhile, the reds (and especially the NRA leadership and all who support their policies) DO want to stop people who live in cities awash in guns from regulating them.

From my perspective, the phrase "awash in guns" is a values statement that the situation is unacceptable, and must change.  The desire to regulate is a desire to use the force of government to change the culture.  Thus, the point stands.  Both cultures desire to change the other, and must to get their goals?  They just don't see their own culture's infringements.

[David Horn]

(05-03-2018, 06:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-03-2018, 05:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, you have a right to choose to have a dog for defense like you seem to prefer and the right choose to have a gun for defense like me and the right to choose to have both them like me too. Thank God, we still live in America.

The problem is that both factions are trying to force their life style and approach to defense on the other.  The blues seek criminals who cannot acquire a weapon.  The reds seek the traditional ability to defend one's self, family and community.  Both are desirable goals from my point of view, but many see the weapons as available or unavailable to all.   There is a perception that if the other guy's goal is achieved, one is frustrated in achieving one's own goal.

There was a time when the issue was mostly moot.  This hyper-fascination with guns and being forever armed is relatively recent.  You can track the history of the NRA and its advocacy, and the two track together.  Below the surface, this is about selling guns ... period ... full stop!

[David Horn]

(05-04-2018, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-03-2018, 10:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Meanwhile, the reds (and especially the NRA leadership and all who support their policies) DO want to stop people who live in cities awash in guns from regulating them.

From my perspective, the phrase "awash in guns" is a values statement that the situation is unacceptable, and must change.  The desire to regulate is a desire to use the force of government to change the culture.  Thus, the point stands.  Both cultures desire to change the other, and must to get their goals?  They just don't see their own culture's infringements.

Regulation is just the alternative to deregulation.  Both impose costs and benefits.  Both empower some and disempower others.  Pretending to the contrary is diengenuous.  In this case, the majority benefits from regulation, since the majority are not gun owners.  Eventually, that disparity will take its toll.  The NRA and its supporters should keep that in mind.  When the pendulum swings, it tends to keep going for a long while.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-04-2018, 10:11 AM)David Horn Wrote: There was a time when the issue was mostly moot.  This hyper-fascination with guns and being forever armed is relatively recent.  You can track the history of the NRA and its advocacy, and the two track together.  Below the surface, this is about selling guns ... period ... full stop!

Well, no.  You can reduce things so only your own values count, and indulge in the straw man, in assigning vile motivations to the other guy.  That simplifies something complex, gives one a false sense of high virtue.  Some folk will cling to other values, and attribute false motivation.

This is a messy situation.  Locking into ones own values won't give an accurate feel for it.

[Eric the Green]

(05-04-2018, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-03-2018, 10:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Meanwhile, the reds (and especially the NRA leadership and all who support their policies) DO want to stop people who live in cities awash in guns from regulating them.

From my perspective, the phrase "awash in guns" is a values statement that the situation is unacceptable, and must change.  The desire to regulate is a desire to use the force of government to change the culture.  Thus, the point stands.  Both cultures desire to change the other, and must to get their goals?  They just don't see their own culture's infringements.

Certainly, in many urban areas, being awash with guns is indeed unacceptable. Those in rural areas seem resigned to accept it, although they too experience heightened gun violence as a direct result.

Guns are not in any sense positive. It is only to be admitted that many Americans today think that they are. Fine. We have to accept the different values that exist in our culture, within some limit of decency.

But if people in rural areas, who accept guns as part of their culture, seek to stop urban areas from having the regulation they need, then it is the reds who are imposing their culture on the blues, by insisting on opposing the national gun regulations that alone can deal with the situation of cities awash in guns, and insisting that people in urban areas should look upon guns in the same way that rural folks do.

And the red rural culture has only recently been awash with military weapons like the AR-15. This is not an acceptable situation, regardless of the distorted "values" that may uphold it. The national gun regulations being proposed (and likely to be approved in the 2020s) would not affect the rural gun culture as it was before the recent acceleration which David alluded to--- the expansion of military weapons with large magazines, open and conceal carry laws, repeal of existing regulations, concentration of gun ownership, etc., all propped up by the criminal institution called the current NRA leadership, otherwise simply and correctly called the gun lobby, and all who back it. This is a 4T delusional culture quite similar to that of Dixie on the eve of the Civil War; a mad and demonic defense of outdated and dangerous civil attitudes, and now making violent threats to the civil order.

The current obsession with guns in rural and red America is thus not based on any cultural or social value that deserves any respect. It is a distortion of the gun and rural value system that existed before, which blues recognize, even if some folks like me still think that too is illegitimate in the long run.

[pbrower2a]

(05-04-2018, 07:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-04-2018, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-03-2018, 10:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Meanwhile, the reds (and especially the NRA leadership and all who support their policies) DO want to stop people who live in cities awash in guns from regulating them.

From my perspective, the phrase "awash in guns" is a values statement that the situation is unacceptable, and must change.  The desire to regulate is a desire to use the force of government to change the culture.  Thus, the point stands.  Both cultures desire to change the other, and must to get their goals?  They just don't see their own culture's infringements.

Certainly, in many urban areas, being awash with guns is indeed unacceptable. Those in rural areas seem resigned to accept it, although they too experience heightened gun violence as a direct result.

Except perhaps in such places as Detroit, which is becoming rural due to depopulation, the only legitimate uses for the common man for firearms are sport-hunting, target-shooting, or self-defense. If I had to live in bear country or cougar country I would keep a high-power weapon.

Much of the gun-related violence is criminal in nature, associated with drug activity, armed robberies, and domestic violence. Of course it is arguable that the pistol that an 80-pound woman has might put an end to beatings by a 200-pound man... and of course the 200-pound man. (The four most common circumstances in which murder occurs are domestic violence, liquor-fueled brawls, armed robberies, and drug activity). But if an 80-pound woman needs a pistol to protect herself from a beating from a 200-pound man, then other solutions might be appropriate. Divorce free of charge to a victim on the principle of 'abuser pays'?

I don't know what it will take to stop the bar-room brawls (with high-functioning autism I know that I am particularly vulnerable because I am utterly incompetent at reading non-verbal communication). Of course we need a crackdown on violent drug gangs; Michigan's policy of 25-to-life for armed robberies is good for making recidivism a rarity for armed robberies (go into prison for armed robbery as a young tough punk and leave prison a broken old man because parole eligibility begins after 25 years and is anything but automatic). Domestic violence becomes rare when the culture makes it intolerable much as the crackdown on child sexual abuse is scaring the Hell out of people who used to think that they could get away with it.

Quote:Guns are not in any sense positive. It is only to be admitted that many Americans today think that they are. Fine. We have to accept the different values that exist in our culture, within some limit of decency.

Concession for firearms for sport hunting and target-shooting, but otherwise fine. I know sport hunters who use their firearms for legitimate game hunting; those people are generally well-behaved. Steal their expensive guns, and they will get the cops on the gun thief's tail.

Quote:But if people in rural areas, who accept guns as part of their culture, seek to stop urban areas from having the regulation they need, then it is the reds who are imposing their culture on the blues, by insisting on opposing the national gun regulations that alone can deal with the situation of cities awash in guns, and insisting that people in urban areas should look upon guns in the same way that rural folks do.

The rural culture and the urban culture are not the same. Of course there are urban dwellers who do sport hunting in a well-planned hunting trip that begins with a drive on Interstate 75 from greater Detroit to the backwoods of northern Michigan....

Quote:And the red rural culture has only recently been awash with military weapons like the AR-15. This is not an acceptable situation, regardless of the distorted "values" that may uphold it. The national gun regulations being proposed (and likely to be approved in the 2020s) would not affect the rural gun culture as it was before the recent acceleration which David alluded to--- the expansion of military weapons with large magazines, open and conceal carry laws, repeal of existing regulations, concentration of gun ownership, etc., all propped up by the criminal institution called the current NRA leadership, otherwise simply and correctly called the gun lobby, and all who back it. This is a 4T delusional culture quite similar to that of Dixie on the eve of the Civil War; a mad and demonic defense of outdated and dangerous civil attitudes, and now making violent threats to the civil order.

Such weapons as the AR-15 and AK-47 have no valid use as sporting weapons. Self-defense? At really-lose range (the 80-pound woman being beaten by her 200-pound not-much-of-a-man), a smaller weapon might be a necessity -- but a good divorce lawyer is even better.

The idea that one needs weapons as a defense against the usurpation of dictatorial power ignores that militias armed with rifles are defenseless against such an organization as the United States Marine Corps -- and that despite the proliferation of privately-owned massacre weapons we have seen the clearest steps toward dictatorship in American history, and this with the connivance of the 'gun rights' people. The threats of the 'gun culture' are not made against Donald Trump or against the effective 'government by lobbyist' that have been gutting democracy in America.

Quote:The current obsession with guns in rural and red America is thus not based on any cultural or social value that deserves any respect. It is a distortion of the gun and rural value system that existed before, which blues recognize, even if some folks like me still think that too is illegitimate in the long run.

Rural America is beginning to hurt due to the trade wars that hurt farm producers in some 'Red' states... as the People's Republic of China retaliates. Economic distress in rural areas, we must remember, made possible the New Deal coalition in the last 4T.

[Classic-Xer]

(05-03-2018, 06:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-03-2018, 05:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, you have a right to choose to have a dog for defense like you seem to prefer and the right choose to have a gun for defense like me and the right to choose to have both them like me too. Thank God, we still live in America.

The problem is that both factions are trying to force their life style and approach to defense on the other.  The blues seek criminals who cannot acquire a weapon.  The reds seek the traditional ability to defend one's self, family and community.  Both are desirable goals from my point of view, but many see the weapons as available or unavailable to all.   There is a perception that if the other guy's goal is achieved, one is frustrated in achieving one's own goal.

I don't see it that way at all.  What's our goal? Is our goal, as you see it, to arm all Americans by passing laws that would legally force US citizens like yourself (people who choose not to own them for whatever reason) to acquire them?

[Eric the Green]

(05-05-2018, 10:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-04-2018, 07:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-04-2018, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-03-2018, 10:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Meanwhile, the reds (and especially the NRA leadership and all who support their policies) DO want to stop people who live in cities awash in guns from regulating them.

From my perspective, the phrase "awash in guns" is a values statement that the situation is unacceptable, and must change.  The desire to regulate is a desire to use the force of government to change the culture.  Thus, the point stands.  Both cultures desire to change the other, and must to get their goals?  They just don't see their own culture's infringements.

Certainly, in many urban areas, being awash with guns is indeed unacceptable. Those in rural areas seem resigned to accept it, although they too experience heightened gun violence as a direct result.

Except perhaps in such places as Detroit, which is becoming rural due to depopulation, the only legitimate uses for the common man for firearms are sport-hunting, target-shooting, or self-defense. If I had to live in bear country or cougar country I would keep a high-power weapon.

I know that compromise with gun advocates is needed for these purposes and others. However, I do not see sport hunting as legitimate. In our time of humans endangering life on the planet, animals should be allowed to live. Where population regulation is needed, we have rangers who can deal with problems in more humane ways.

That includes tranquilizer guns and transport vehicles to move animals to their proper territory. This could also be an alternative for those living in bear or cougar country. Then again, why should humans live in bear or cougar country? Shouldn't other species be allowed to have their territories as well as humans?

Bears are scary beasts. But I remember in the old days my family would take a vacation in Yosemite and the bears would come at night and steal food. We heard one; he came and went and that was that. Unless their cubs are threatened, bears may not be all that dangerous. But I know, fear is understandable.

[Classic-Xer]

(05-05-2018, 10:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Rural America is beginning to hurt due to the trade wars that hurt farm producers in some 'Red' states... as the People's Republic of China retaliates. Economic distress in rural areas, we must remember, made possible the New Deal coalition in the last 4T.

Funny. The Democrats should've paid more attention to the economic distress going on in their rural regions a few years ago. Evidently, the Democratic party didn't realize a portion of blue America was suffering and basically in a state of crisis or simply didn't care because they weren't minorities or women seeking more financial support from government. So, how does it feel being a member of so-called white privilege?

[Classic-Xer]

(05-05-2018, 01:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-05-2018, 10:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-04-2018, 07:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-04-2018, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-03-2018, 10:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Meanwhile, the reds (and especially the NRA leadership and all who support their policies) DO want to stop people who live in cities awash in guns from regulating them.

From my perspective, the phrase "awash in guns" is a values statement that the situation is unacceptable, and must change.  The desire to regulate is a desire to use the force of government to change the culture.  Thus, the point stands.  Both cultures desire to change the other, and must to get their goals?  They just don't see their own culture's infringements.

Certainly, in many urban areas, being awash with guns is indeed unacceptable. Those in rural areas seem resigned to accept it, although they too experience heightened gun violence as a direct result.

Except perhaps in such places as Detroit, which is becoming rural due to depopulation, the only legitimate uses for the common man for firearms are sport-hunting, target-shooting, or self-defense. If I had to live in bear country or cougar country I would keep a high-power weapon.

I know that compromise with gun advocates is needed for these purposes and others. However, I do not see sport hunting as legitimate. In our time of humans endangering life on the planet, animals should be allowed to live. Where population regulation is needed, we have rangers who can deal with problems in more humane ways.

That includes tranquilizer guns and transport vehicles to move animals to their proper territory. This could also be an alternative for those living in bear or cougar country. Then again, why should humans live in bear or cougar country? Shouldn't other species be allowed to have their territories as well as humans?

Bears are scary beasts. But I remember in the old days my family would take a vacation in Yosemite and the bears would come at night and steal food. We heard one; he came and went and that was that. Unless their cubs are threatened, bears may not be all that dangerous. But I know, fear is understandable.

How many rangers and trained professionals would you need to hire to replace the hunters in the state of Minnesota? How much revenue would the state loose? How much state and local economic activity would be lost as well? How much of a tax increase would the state need to employ and equip full time of park rangers/hunters and emergency response teams to deal with pesky/dangerous looking/dangerous acting critters and pay for services of professional hunters/groups of professional  who are qualified and fully equipped to deal with nastiest critters and manage the size of larger deer/antelope/elk/caribou herds without any shots being heard?

Why shouldn't humans live in bear country? They're living in human country. We have had some bear sightings in the community. Evidently, a few bears migrated from bear country to suburbia which the clueless blues must not have believed was possible because bear country is widely considered to be further north. We also have a few cougars that have been sighted who migrated from cougar country as well. Oh, and we have wild deer and turkeys and coyotes wondering around and disrupting traffic and upsetting humans all over the place too. I get the feeling that nature doesn't give a shit about human rules and the obvious signs associated with human country.

[pbrower2a]

(05-05-2018, 02:18 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(05-05-2018, 10:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Rural America is beginning to hurt due to the trade wars that hurt farm producers in some 'Red' states... as the People's Republic of China retaliates. Economic distress in rural areas, we must remember, made possible the New Deal coalition in the last 4T.

Funny. The Democrats should've paid more attention to the economic distress going on in their rural regions a few years ago. Evidently, the Democratic party didn't realize a portion of blue America was suffering and basically in a state of crisis or simply didn't care because they weren't minorities or women seeking more financial support from government. So, how does it feel being a member of so-called white privilege?

The distress for small farmers coincides with the consolidation of farming into fewer and larger farms. The giant corporate farms clearly align with the Right, so economic distress for small farmers caused many of them to sell out if they weren't put through bankruptcy.

Economic distress for small farmers was severe in the 1920s; rural areas got burned badly before the Stock Market Crash of 1929. The technology of the tractor raised productivity while cutting crop prices even faster. As you can expect, giant farms can enjoy the benefits of economies of scale.

The banks were all-powerful in rural America, which may have fueled some of the antisemitism in the rural discontent (Banking is not a particularly Jewish activity, Jewish bankers largely confined to banks that have largely Jewish clientele in places of mass Jewish settlement, so the anger is misplaced). Bankers could make a neat profit selling foreclosed property to surviving, increasingly-giant farmers.

Prices can go so low that even the surviving giants get into financial trouble.

[Classic-Xer]

(05-04-2018, 10:28 AM)David Horn Wrote: Regulation is just the alternative to deregulation.  Both impose costs and benefits.  Both empower some and disempower others.  Pretending to the contrary is diengenuous.  In this case, the majority benefits from regulation, since the majority are not gun owners.  Eventually, that disparity will take its toll.  The NRA and its supporters should keep that in mind.  When the pendulum swings, it tends to keep going for a long while.

Well, the threat to American gun ownership as a whole hasn't risen to the point of being viewed as a legitimate threat. As you say, pretending to the contrary is disingenuous. The blues and their anti-gun supporters and activist groups and all the lobbyists associated with them should keep that in mind. I mean, a clear and obvious threat to the 2nd Amendment and all of American gun ownership would have an affect on the pendulum. But, as we know, it would have to seriously attempted to prove which way the pendulum would swing and in who's favor.

[Classic-Xer]

(05-05-2018, 05:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The distress for small farmers coincides with the consolidation of farming into fewer and larger farms. The giant corporate farms clearly align with the Right, so economic distress for small farmers caused many of them to sell out if they weren't put through bankruptcy.

Economic distress for small farmers was severe in the 1920s; rural areas got burned badly before the Stock Market Crash of 1929. The technology of the tractor raised productivity while cutting crop prices even faster. As you can expect, giant farms can enjoy the benefits of economies of scale.

The banks were all-powerful in rural America, which may have fueled some of the antisemitism in the rural discontent (Banking is not a particularly Jewish activity, Jewish bankers largely confined to banks that have largely Jewish clientele in places of mass Jewish settlement, so the anger is misplaced). Bankers could make a neat profit selling foreclosed property to surviving, increasingly-giant farmers.

Prices can go so low that even the surviving giants get into financial trouble.

Well, as I recall the bulk of that happened during the mid- late 80's and extended into the 1990's. My uncle found himself stuck in the middle of it towards the end of his banking career.

[dcgal]

Americans either don't know or want to know that the US is collapsing or think that nothing can be done to save the USA. Any plans or ideas to slow or escape the decay are quickly shot down as unworkable.

Instead of demanding that minimum wages be repealed or checkpoints be ended, Americans would rather beg for their chains by asking for more laws.

Insanity.

[David Horn]

(05-05-2018, 06:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(05-04-2018, 10:28 AM)David Horn Wrote: Regulation is just the alternative to deregulation.  Both impose costs and benefits.  Both empower some and disempower others.  Pretending to the contrary is diengenuous.  In this case, the majority benefits from regulation, since the majority are not gun owners.  Eventually, that disparity will take its toll.  The NRA and its supporters should keep that in mind.  When the pendulum swings, it tends to keep going for a long while.

Well, the threat to American gun ownership as a whole hasn't risen to the point of being viewed as a legitimate threat. As you say, pretending to the contrary is disingenuous. The blues and their anti-gun supporters and activist groups and all the lobbyists associated with them should keep that in mind. I mean, a clear and obvious threat to the 2nd Amendment and all of American gun ownership would have an affect on the pendulum. But, as we know, it would have to seriously attempted to prove which way the pendulum would swing and in who's favor.

Step 1: A less gun friendly court is seated when <insert name of conservative jurist> is replaced by one less gun friendly.  This is virtually guaranteed, since a conservative court remaining in perpetuity is not going to happen.

Step 2: A gun-restricting law is passed somewhere that rises to SCOTUS review, and Heller is overturned.  Heller was marginal at best, so this is highly likely.

Step 3: Repeat step 2 in other states and cities.

Step 4: Make it a national law.

 At that point, the gun controllers will be happy and, being the majority, will not be dislodged for a very long time if ever.