navwin » Discussion » The Alley » shoot the message
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic shoot the message Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

0 posted 2011-09-19 10:52 PM



quote:


Speaking to a Massachusetts tea party group recently, conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart made some comments that are raising eyebrows online this week, telling the small gathering of Republicans that he sometimes wants to “fire the first shot.”

“I’m under attack all the time,” he said. “The call me gay. There are death threats… There are times when I’m not thinking as clearly as I should, and in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, ‘Fire the first shot. Bring it on.’ Because I know who’s on our side.

“They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country and we have the guns… I’m not kidding. They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line because they know what they’re dealing with. ”


http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/breitbart-conservatives-outnumber-liberals-and-we-have-the-guns/

© Copyright 2011 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

1 posted 2011-09-20 04:17 PM




     I get nervous when anybody talks about how many guns and numbers they have, and how gnarly they are.  It makes me wonder what sort of total they are trying to reach, and what their purpose is in trying to reach it.

Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

2 posted 2011-09-20 04:29 PM



I think he's got a right to voice his opinion and I'm pleased that he exercised that right.

.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
3 posted 2011-09-21 12:22 PM


He speaks of being called 'gay' as if its' a pejorative.  Perhaps he protesteth too much, considering his apparent obsession with phallic symbols.

From Perry's secession threats to Angle's 'second amendment solutions' to 'fire the first shot'....these people have a real respect for democracy and the constitution eh?  Doesn't winning the rhetorical war mean winning elections?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
4 posted 2011-09-21 12:29 PM


From  the Teamster's president letting Obama know that his "army is ready for war" and Obama himself warning the Republicans "not to bring a knife to a gun fight", I'd say Obama is realizing the only way to win the election.....the Chicago way.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
5 posted 2011-09-21 01:25 AM


Mike, what's the obvious difference between Sharon Angle's statement and Hoffa's?  I'll give you a hint.  One is talking about using votes, the other is talking about using guns (if the vote doesn't go the way you want it to).

When Obama says 'bring a knife to,a gun fight' were there some actual knives and guns involved?  Did someone threaten to shoot you if you didn't vote for Obama?  Or was he talking, again, about the rhetorical battle of politics?

Is seceding from the union something that's done when you don't like the way an election goes?  (the last time sure was peaceful wasn't it?)

What is Breitbart talking about here?  Is there some context to his comment that I don't understand?  If there is, I'm all ears, but, you and I both know there isn't.

If it helps you sleep at night to try to convince us there is some kind of equivalence here Big Bird sends his regards.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
6 posted 2011-09-21 08:15 AM


LOL! What a surprise. When lefties do it, it's all very innocent and misunderstood. When righties do it, it's nefarious and speaks of homicide, assassination and all-out warfare. Thanks for clearing that up. I could apply the same logic to republican comments, including the ones here, along with the mention of "crosshairs" and "targeting" that garnered a lot of inflammatory rhetoric from the left wing press but, since you wouldn't apply the same logic to those, why bother?

So, the question is, if you are taking potshots at Republicans, does that mean you are actually shooting at them??? Perhaps you would like to see them bite the bullet? There are phrases we use in poetry circles called metaphors. Check them out..!  

Mike, what's the obvious difference between Sharon Angle's statement and Hoffa's?  I'll give you a hint.  One is talking about using votes, the other is talking about using guns (if the vote doesn't go the way you want it to).

Good example here. You are defining the two comments by what you want them to mean. You asked me that, when Obama mentioned bringing a knife to a gunfight, was there an actual gun involved. Was there an actual gun involved with Angle's statement, outside of your imagination, I mean. How do you know Hoffa is speaking of only votes? Remember the Panthers at the polling booths for intimation? Or are you telling me unions are incapable of violence when things don't go their way? Try to cross a picket line and you'll have your answer. If Angle were a democrat and Hoffa a republican, you could, and possible would, defend and excuse Angle (and even Breitbart's comments) while blasting Hoffa for being a war-mongers, threatening to take the war to the streets, if the votes don't go their way. You should really make the biased potshots more believable, yanno?

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
7 posted 2011-09-21 11:26 AM


I don't know, Mike. I don't think I'm especially biased. But I nonetheless see a distinction between Hoffa's "Everybody here's got a vote" and Breitbart's "We outnumber them in this country and we have the guns." Yea, it's sometimes easy to take metaphors too literally, but it's equally easy to read metaphors in where none were intended. There is nothing, to me, in Breitbart's posted comments that suggest metaphor.

On the other hand, first, I don't know that the posted comments weren't taken out of context (a favorite strategy of both sides), and second, I'm not entirely sure why I should care. Until this thread, I never even heard of Breitbart before. He's not elected, he's not a leader, he appears to just be this guy someone decided to quote. There are plenty of crazies on both sides of the aisle, and I see no particular reason this guy should be more worrisome than most.



Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
8 posted 2011-09-21 01:06 PM


******Warning.  The following post contains analogies.  ******

[analogies]
Two identical bottles are in front of you.  One contains a chemical with a molecular composition of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.  The other contains a chemical with a molecular composition of one hydrogen and one oxygen molecule.

These two bottles are very similar Mike.  But, would you be inclined to drink from both bottles?  Or, just one?

Cindy Crawford and a transvestite who looks like Cindy Crawford are wearing identical dresses.  Are you equally inclined to ask one on a date as the other?

I hand you identical boxes.  Inside one are a dozen cordial cherries.  The other has a dozen cherry bombs.  Which box would you eat?
[/analogies]

gotta go.... more later

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
9 posted 2011-09-21 03:57 PM


Ok, for Ron....

The important thing about Andrew Breitbart Ron, is that Mike and Denise know who he is.  You feel his influence on these pages all the time;

quote:


[edit]Anthony Weiner
Main article: Anthony Weiner sexting scandal
On May 28, 2011, Breitbart posted a sexually explicit photo on his BigJournalism website of New York Representative Anthony Weiner obtained through Weiner's Twitter account.[36] Initially Weiner denied that he had sent a link to the photograph to a 21-year-old female college student, but after questions developed, he admitted to inappropriate online relationships. On June 6, 2011 Breitbart reported other photos Weiner had sent, including one that was sexually graphic. On June 8, 2011, the sexually graphic photo was leaked after Breitbart participated in a radio interview with hosts Opie and Anthony, though Breitbart stated that the photo was published without his permission.[37] Weiner subsequently resigned from his congressional seat on June 21, 2011.
[edit]Shirley Sherrod
Main article: Resignation of Shirley Sherrod
On July 19, 2010, Breitbart posted two short videos showing excerpts of a speech by Shirley Sherrod at an NAACP fundraising dinner in March 2010. The videos ensuing controversy resulted in Sherrod being fired from the United States Department of Agriculture on July 19. After Breitbart was criticized for taking Sherrod's words out of context, he posted the complete 40-minute video of the speech.[38][39][40] The NAACP stated that the video excerpts aired by Breitbart were deliberately deceptive and said that he had "snookered" the group.[39][40] Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack later apologized to Sherrod and offered her a new job.[41] In 2011, Sherrod brought suit against Breitbart for defamation.[42]
[edit]ACORN undercover videos
Main article: ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy
Breitbart was also involved in the 2009 ACORN video controversy. Hannah Giles[43][44] posed as a prostitute seeking assistance while James O'Keefe portrayed her boyfriend, and clandestinely videotaped meetings with ACORN staff.[45] Subsequent criminal investigations by the Brooklyn District Attorney's office and the California Attorney General found the videos were heavily edited in an attempt to make ACORN's responses "appear more sinister",[46][47][48] and contributed to the group's demise.[49][50] Breitbart then provided a forum for O'Keefe on his BigGovernment.com website[51] and defended his actions on Sean Hannity's Fox News Channel program.[52]
Breitbart has also been embroiled in a controversy within the conservative movement related to the participation of gay group GOProud in the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an annual conference held in Washington, D.C. by the American Conservative Union. In 2011 he was the primary host of a party that served to "welcome" the "homocons" to the convention (though it was the second year they had been participants). This flew in the face of a boycott staged by a few social conservative groups that were offended by the inclusion of GOProud within the conservative fold. Writer, producer, and publisher Roger L. Simon referred to the group as a "game-changer" for the Republican party, and asserted that it represented a turning point in the appeal that the conservative movement might hold for young people. Breitbart is now on the Advisory Board of GOProud.[53] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Breitbart



More important than who he is though - or that Mike and Denise know who he is, is the reaction the subject comments elicit from his audience, indicating their own private fantasy to do bodily harm to liberals.  You would do yourself a favor to review the source material and watch the video.

The crowd reaction is a complement to the thunderous applause Ric Perry received at the MSNBC Republican primary debate, the only real crowd outburst, for having executed hundreds of prisoners in Texas.  And, it goes right along side the crowd at the CNN debate that cheered 'yes' to Blitzer's hypothetical man with no insurance in a sudden coma when he asked Ron Paul if he should merely be allowed to die.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
10 posted 2011-09-21 04:20 PM


Okay back to Mike now.......

explain what this means;

quote:


Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who's in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical...

Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.
Angle: Well it's to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/sharron-angle-floated-2nd_n_614003.html



What is she talking about there? or here?

quote:

In Nevada, Sharron Angle -- the Senate candidate who wants to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid --seemed to raise that specter in three interviews in the past six months, suggesting that some would seek "Second Amendment remedies" if Congress isn't reined in.

She said the purpose of the right to bear arms is to check the federal government. But she stopped short of saying that she would support an armed uprising.

"Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government," Angle told conservative talk show host Lars Larson in January. "In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies."

Also that month, she told Reno conservative talk show host Bill Manders she hoped Reid would be defeated at the ballot box before the electorate resorted to more aggressive measures.

"I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies," Angle said. "I hope that the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems."
.
And last month she told the Reno Gazette-Journal "it's almost an imperative" that conservatives win.

"The nation is arming," she told the newspaper. "What are they arming for if it isn't that they are so distrustful of their government? They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways. That's why I look at this as almost an imperative. If we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?"

Is she simply tapping into an intense mistrust of the federal government? Or is she advocating



http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/nev-senate-hopeful-sharron-angle-talks-armed-revolt
Yes sir Mike, this is a real nice place you got here.  Be a shame if something happened to it.......

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
11 posted 2011-09-21 04:48 PM


And since collective bargaining rights are under attack by GOP governments in states throughout the country -- better to remember a little bit of history Mike;

http://www.epls.org/nw/dig_emassacre.asp

and, didja ever hear of the Pinkerton Detective Agency?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
12 posted 2011-09-21 05:20 PM


Ron, I have to say I'm with you. LR has made a definitive statement that I know who Brietbart is, which is really foolish since he cannot possibly know, nor can he prove. That is not new for him. I looked up Breitbart, too, to learn that he worked with Ms. Huffington to create the Huffington Post, among other things. For some reason LR has presented him as a voice and representative conscious of the Republican party.  Hey, if he wants to think so, it's a free country.

Yes, of course comments  can be taken out of context and presented any way the presenter wants to interpret them to prove whatever point he is trying to make. To Obama's comment about bringing a knife to a gunfight, LR's response is "Do you see a gun?" In response to the teamster chief referring to having soldiers and going to war with the SOB's. LR says they are talking about getting out votes. What if the votes don't go their way? If there were any group I would not want to cross if they don't get their way, unions would top the list. History is littered with violence instigated by unions when they "didn't get their way." LR thinks this type of conjuncture is unfair to them. If they were Republicans, my money would be on his position doing a complete 360.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
13 posted 2011-09-21 05:36 PM


/pip/Forum6/HTML/001941.html#71
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001859.html#22
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001979.html#2
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001925.html#6

want more?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
14 posted 2011-09-21 05:46 PM


"Hi, this is Balladeer, along with Toerag, hired by NBC to cover this Monday night football game of the Jets and the Patriots. It promises to be a hard fought game with both teams going at it tooth and nail. Toerag, How do you see it?"

"Well, Deer, the teams are so evenly matched that I feel it is necessary to draw first blood and intimidate the other team as quickly as possible. The Jets have the big guns and will come out firing for sure."

"Well, Toe, The Jets have them well outnumbered in all-star players but I anticipate that the Patriots will come out firing and go for the jugular early. Grab your popcorn, folks, and get ready. It's going to be a war!!

Do you think both teams came out with machine guns and AK-47's, LR. THAT'S how easy metaphors can be used.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
15 posted 2011-09-21 05:53 PM


LR, your links simply show that I used some of Breitbart's words or links to prove a point. When we were having discussions back then we all searched for links that would support our points. Obviously Brietbart had some that were beneficial to whatever point I was trying to make and I used them....then immediately forget about the links when the thread was over. Big deal. It certainly doesn't mean I know, or knew, him personally or anything about his life. I actually did have to look him up when you introduced this thread, so shoot me...er, does that mean I want you to show up at my door with a .45 in your hand? No, it's one of those silly metaphors.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
16 posted 2011-09-21 05:57 PM


With regards to you analogies in reply #8, I have no idea what you mean.

What makes you think you can present Breitbart as a representative of the GOP? His opinions appear to be his own, as are his comments.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
17 posted 2011-09-21 06:28 PM


What did Sharon Angle mean?  It seems pretty obvious to  me. She believes that every citizen has the right to defend themselves. If the government is corrupt and wants to infringe on the rights of it's people, they have a right to take up arms against them. Why wouls she feel that way? Videos like this is one hint.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx2PP4pYGno http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWajf5RkDJ8&NR=1


Having Black Panthers show up at voting places to intimidate voters is another. There is distrust of Obama and how far he will go. That distrust is well-deserved.

Angle was defeated. She said some dumb things and couldn't even beat Harry Reid, whose popularity in his own state was in single digits. What makes you classify her as a representative of the Republication party?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
18 posted 2011-09-21 09:44 PM


.

Maybe it’s all art for art’s sake like P""s Christ or:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-405644/George-Bush-assassinatio n-film-wins-award.html

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

19 posted 2011-09-21 10:56 PM




quote:

Angle was defeated. She said some dumb things and couldn't even beat Harry Reid, whose popularity in his own state was in single digits. What makes you classify her as a representative of the Republication party?



     Unless you are actually making a joke with your spelling of "Republican," above, and you are not usually one to do that, I suspect that you've taken perhaps a tiny step too far with the rhetoric here.  Her nomination for the office of United States Senator from Nevada on the Republican ticket in the last election is all that is needed to classify her as a representative of the Republican Party.  Both she and the Nevada Republicans made that decision together, and their mutual decision was not contested by the national party.  As I recall, there were a significant number of speakers from the Republican party and from the Tea Party who spoke in her support and who campaigned for her her in that election.  Indeed, if you yourself did not support her, I saw no evidence of that here.  All I heard from you were attacks on Senator Reid.

     Perhaps you might construct that as saying that you were against the woman, and felt she was unworthy of being called a Republican and of getting Republican support.  I would find that a distinction without a difference myself, and would read that as evidence that even you accepted the woman as a Republican and Representative of Republican ideas, ideals and positions.

     If I have any of this wrong, of course, I'd like to know how I'm misreading the situation in your view.  In the meantime, I tend to see things as you getting carried away by your point into taking just that little step too far.  The whole coinage "second ammendment solutions" feels like a sanitized way of speaking of armed insurrection and targeted political murder.  You may not know it or hear it that way; but, please, other than those interpretations, can you offer plausible alternative readings of the phrase?

     This is the sort of thing that the security state that we have gone about constructing, left wing and right wing together, I'm afraid, salivates to hear from either side of the political spectrum.  In my opinion, of course.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
20 posted 2011-09-21 11:45 PM


Oh, please, Bob. Do you really think Republicans are arming themselves to march on Washington and take Obama out by force? Say it ain't so, Joe.

Is every person who runs for office automatically a spokesperson for the party he/she belongs to? You have already had several democrats have to apologize for their language or how they phrased certain things, including the president. You have no problem giving them a pass, I assume? And Breitbart? How do you make him a spokesman for the GOP, as LR has?

Btw, my spelling or republicans was not a play on words. My computer has a cute little trick of moving the cursor at times while I am typing, adding letters I'm typing to wherever the cursor landed. I am normally better at proofreading, though. Sorry about that.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

21 posted 2011-09-22 12:45 PM




     No problem, I'm not good at proofreading myself.

     No, I don't think Republicans are arming to march on Washington to take out the Government, but their identification with the notion of small government has pushed them into alliances with folks who do have that sort of rhetoric from time to time.  The former candidate in Nevada is one of those people; she was a fringe person who should never have been permitted to run as a Republican because her views did fall into the "second ammendment solutions" category, even after she was pursueded to modify some of her other rhetoric by the party higher ups.

     Yes, she was representative, as are a lot of folks who agree with her politics.  

     Are there folks way out on the fringe in the Democratic Party?  Sure there are, but I doubt that there are any who are as far to the left as she is to the right.  The socialist Senator from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats isn't that far left.

     Not everybody who runs for office gets a chance to win a party primary.  I think that those who do have a right to say that they speak for their party.  If I were to announce myself — a known liberal democrat — as a Republican candidate for office, then, well, probably not.  I'm not about to be absolute about this, simply reasonable and in line with what I understand from personal experience.  I also know that if the national party sends support in terms of speakers and sometimes adds and money, then that candidate has party backing and speaks for the party as well.  Ms. Right Angle appeared to do so, and continues on occasion to do so.

     There are more rational parts of the Republican Party that speak and act more reasonably these days, I'm sure, but to my mind they've been pretty much purged in favor of a far right base.  The fact that Ms. Angle seems  too difficult for you seems to me to speak to your essential Americanism, and your discomfort with what appears to be the more distasteful parts of her message.    At heart, you're a talker and a doer, not a killer, and killers make you wince.  You're willing to defend your country, and have done so proudly, and I salute you for it; with your fellow citizens, you seem to have a preference for democracy, and I can't help but salute you for that as well.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
22 posted 2011-09-22 08:17 AM


Are there folks way out on the fringe in the Democratic Party?  Sure there are, but I doubt that there are any who are as far to the left as she is to the right.

Surely you jest, good sir. You only have to go to Missouri for that....not to mention Florida and then Pelosi out west. I would venture to guess that you possibly didn't even know much about her before this last election and now she is elevated in your eyes as a worse looney than ANY democrat in office? Man, she lost to one more ridiculous than she is!

she was a fringe person who should never have been permitted to run as a Republican

Republicans have a history of selecting wrong candidates. That's why Obama is in office.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
23 posted 2011-09-22 11:08 AM


quote:
Republicans have a history of selecting wrong candidates. That's why Obama is in office.

LOL. And here I thought that was why Bush was in office.  

What is right and wrong, after all, should reference country, not just a political party. Maybe the Republican party should stop selecting candidates entirely? Maybe it's time to give the Green Party or the Libertarians a shot at the golden ring. I'm not sure they could do much worse than either of the two major parties have done in recent decades.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
24 posted 2011-09-22 02:26 PM


ROFL! You could be right about Bush, Ron. The democrats, in their not-so-finest hour, selected two of the biggest phonies in the democratic party in Gore and Kerry to run against him.

I would like to see other parties get in there. Too often (like always) we are asked to choose between the best of the worst.

I'll put that on my wish list right under term limits for congress.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

25 posted 2011-09-22 03:43 PM




quote:



Surely you jest, good sir. You only have to go to Missouri for that....not to mention Florida and then Pelosi out west. I would venture to guess that you possibly didn't even know much about her before this last election and now she is elevated in your eyes as a worse looney than ANY democrat in office? Man, she lost to one more ridiculous than she is!



     I don't know which Congress-critters you're talking about in Missouri and Florida.  Nor do I know what you think they've done that's further out there than suggesting we should go for "second amendment solutions" to election disagreements.  In fact, coining the term "second amendment solutions" is pretty far out there...  Perhaps you could specify what these congress-critters have done that's further out than that?

     Also, her calls for dissolution of social security, while perhaps popular with some of the more extreme of her Republican base and with George Bush the Younger, who campaigned on the issue in his congressional run, and who tried to destroy the system during his Presidency by  "privatizing it, were much too far to the right for the public at large.  You would be aware of that because of your occasional criticisms of President Obama for those times when you felt he was saying things that might worry people about the security of the social security pensions should the Republican tactics around the budget in congress continue.  What both of us are aware is a very tough issue was something that Ms. Angle was perfectly willing to take away from the public at large without a qualm.

     And which her State Party felt was fine with them, and which her national party backed, after having backed a president who'd advocated the same position.  It was representative of the party; it simply didn't sell well outside of the party because social security is one of the most popular programs every instituted by the government and continues to be so.

     "Ridiculous" is a change of direction.  I don't happen to think Reid is ridiculous, though he may be ineffectual on occasion.  That wasn't the frame of the discussion as I understood it, though it might be an amusing side-trip at some point.  I thought we were talking about folks who were potential sources of incitement to violence, and  who used the threat of violence as a major thread in their rhetoric.  Ms. Angle, when confronted about exactly what she meant by her language in a couple of attempted interviews that I saw on television walked away without comment, despited repeated attempts by the press to get clarification.

     Clearly she did not wish to have her words understood in an unambiguous fashion in that instance; nor have I seen any attempts on her part to clarify in print on tape exactly what she meant.  This is frequently the case from many of our right wing friends, who would apparently like to have their words taken both ways.  If they would like to have their words taken purely as metaphor, they are free to say so, specifically and for themselves on the record.

     Having others do so "for them," allows the remark to stand, doesn't it, and preserves their reputation as spokesperson for the most radical and dangerous of the organizations on the right; and it allows them to court those votes and essentially say that they give those organizations and their philosophies their support.

     I think you have to ask yourself, for what it's worth, if Senator Reid was the more ridiculous — and I don't think he was — what was there about Ms. Angle that made her lose to a more ridiculous candidate; and what was it about Ms. Angle that made her appealing to the voters in the Republican Primary in Nevada at all that they could actually find  and select a candidate that was so very bad that she would lose to such an unpopular Senator?

     That is, if what you say is somewhat close to the heart of the matter.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
26 posted 2011-09-22 04:06 PM


AH, Robert, why bother  going on with this? If you can't understand who I am referring to in Missouri and Florida, then I overestimated your pursuing of the news. You list all of the reasons not to like Angle to a man who didn't care for her either. If you want to claim that she is a spokesperson for the GOP, go ahead. If you wish to paint that picture that anything she says is Bible to Republicans, fine with me. If you feel that Reid is simple "ineffectual on occasion", enjoy the feeling. What was it about her to cause her to lose to a more ridiculous opponent? It is telling to know that, even someone like her, made the race against the sitting president of the Senate as close as it was. The democrat mucksters had to work overtime to avoid an embarrassing defeat. Since they are good at that sort of thing, they pulled it off.

So you enjoy your thoughts and I'll remain happy that Reid and Pelosi are not MY spokespeople.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

27 posted 2011-09-22 08:37 PM




    So who are the Democratic folks in Florida and Missouri that you believe are further off the charts than wishing to destroy social security and advocating "second amendment solutions" to election problems, then?  And who are courting the votes of people who are armed and who make you feel uncomfortable owning Mr. Breitbart as one of the Republican party faithful on what seems to me to be clearly other than gender identity issues?

     My personal point of view, though I currently own no guns, is that I think they're fun to shoot and collect but very difficult to protect and maintain.  For me.  For the purposes that I have in mind for them, they're simply too much of a pain.

     People who speak of settling differences with them don't understand the nature of civil society and the need to participate in it.  The second amendment is about the need to raise a militia, which the country now does by having a national guard, funded jointly by the country and by the states.  "Under arms" and "bearing arms" in the seond amendment" are phrases that speak about bodies of troops.

     If one talks about the right to bear arms against one's fellow countrymen, one is talking about declaring another civil war, in case you hadn't thought that through, and that is what the discomfort around these issues appear to me to be about.

     It is my opinion, and I don't want to rope anyone else into sharing that opinion, so I won't claim that anybody actually does, that we have something like this going on in the country right now.  The far right is arming itself in fear of or in preparation for a civil war.  There is language that they use to talk about this that borrows from biblical language about the end of days and about nuclear oblivion.  There is a survivalist movement.  The usual messianic language is bandied about.

     The left doesn't much believe in weapons gathering and militias, and they don't quite understand the hysteria.  I think the left is at a disadvantage because they don't understand or believe the amount of irrationality that is powering this whole drive to arm one's self against one's neighbor.

     I am reminded of Georg Groddick, The author of "The Book of The It," who said, "We are lived by unknown and unknowable forces."  I would add that we may also be sometimes killed by them.

     Remind me to get my anti-depressant prescription refilled early this month, please.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
28 posted 2011-09-22 11:46 PM


The far right is arming itself in fear of or in preparation for a civil war.

I see that you don't express that as an opinion, but as a fact. They are obviously facts that you cannot verify with any degree of certainty.

(when you refill that anti-depressant, adding a little lithium might not be a bad idea)

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
29 posted 2011-09-22 11:56 PM


Having a national guard, funded jointly by the country and by the states.  "Under arms" and "bearing arms" in the seond amendment" are phrases that speak about bodies of troops. ......BobK


In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It appears the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you, Bob.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

30 posted 2011-09-23 02:56 AM



     The Supremes are free to interpret the constitution as they see fit.  There is no appeal from them except a revision of the constitution or another later interpretation, as I understand it, Mike.  Their current interpretation is in line with the current conservative doctrine, in much the way that the interpretations of the Warren Court were in line with the then current liberal philosophies.  This doesn't mean that that was the way the framers intended the second amendment to be read; it simply means that the current court reads it that way.

     I believe the supremes have every right to read the amendment the way they choose; and I'm aware their interpretation is legally binding.  As you point out, accurately enough, I don't agree with it for reasons I sketched out above.  Having guns in the home may be a great idea but, as I said, was too much trouble for me; and, I thought, they made my home a target for thieves.  It also made it a more dangerous place to get into a dispute with friends and relatives.  If I'd had atomic weapons hanging around, it would have been even more difficult a place to have barbeques on scales that would have required planning for guest lists smaller than whole cities.  It might have been difficult distinguishing between guest and menu, for that matter.

     While I haven't taken a swing or a stab at anybody in my house, I'd rather there be no firearms here in case a visitor might have a flare-up and might care to reach for a weapon.  I have on occasion had patients in the house, and some of them have been psychotic on occasion.  I've tried successfully to steer them away from sharp objects.

     I would like to get some sort of light rifle at some point and see if I've overcome my childhood tremor from asthma medcication.  When I shot, I was lucky if my bullets ever managed to hit the ground, even when I aimed at the sky.  It was very discouraging.

     No lithium, Mike; I don't have any bipolar  problems, only a tendency to get a bit down.  Ever see Detective Munch on any of the Special Victim's Unit shows, or on Homicide, Life on The Streets?  I weigh a lot more, but the attitude is much the same, and the politics as well.

     And no, the far right arming itself for a civil war is a theory, as I think I made clear.  I cannot imagine any way of proving it, and the quotation I offered was from what the Freudians would call a "wild" analyst who was talking about the way we tend to explain behavior of our own as though it were rational when in fact we don't have the least idea what the reason for it may be.  We explain ourselves as though we understood ourselves when in fact there may be an explanation or there may not be; and we may not even know what the explanation is, even if there is one.

     Opinion, in other words.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
31 posted 2011-09-23 09:25 AM


Their current interpretation is in line with the current conservative doctrine, in much the way that the interpretations of the Warren Court were in line with the then current liberal philosophies

The last time I checked, the liberals  held the edge in both 2008 and 2010 in the Supreme Court, with a Democrat at the helm. I won't swear to that but I believe it's so. Anyway, the supremes will be happy to know you grant them the right to interpret it as they see fit.     

Having guns in the home may be a great idea but, as I said, was too much trouble for me; and, I thought, they made my home a target for thieves.

I have a hard time following that logic. A gun in your house makes you more of a target for thieves? Well, I suppose if you advertise in the local paper BOB K HAS GUNS IN HIS HOUSE HIDDEN IN THE DESK BY HIS BED that might be true. I know a lot of people and I cannot begin to tell you who has guns in their house and who doesn't. Walk around like Mister T with a fortune in gold around your neck and I'll be more inclined to agree you make it enticing for someone to relieve you of it. Actually, what is making you more of a target for thieves these days (and why I have a gun in my house) is the economy. Too many people out of work, too many people hurting, too many people willing to do whatever it takes to provide for  themselves, one one hand......and too many people who know the court system  better than the police who arrest them and know they will probably only get a slap on the wrist for something as minor as home invasion or burglary. THOSE  things are what make your home more of a target for thieves.

It also made it a more dangerous place to get into a dispute with friends and relatives.

You worry about a shoot-out with friends and relatives? When they come  over do you hide the knives in the kitchen drawers, the hatchet in the garage and remove all sharp objects from the house? Atomic weapons?? Bob, your barbeques must be legendary, even for California!!

No, Bob, I don't believe the Right, even the far Right, are stockpiling their weapons for the coming war they plan to initiate with the government. They are simply people taking steps to protect their own, and their family's, safety. Interestingly enough, one of the best ways to get someone to do something is to tell them they can't. I'll wager that many people have gone out and gotten guns for their house for the additional reason that they believe the government is on the road to taking away the right to do so. Certainly that thesis must exist in one of the psychology books you have read, since I know you are a professional in studies of human behavior.

You mentioned in the other thread about the wrongness of judging groups of people in pure black or white terms, friend-foe, good-evil, etc. I would suggest you do the same for conservatives and, yes, even tea-partiers and even gun owners. It's sad that so many people feel they have the need to protect themselves but, as the saying goes....WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.



Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
32 posted 2011-09-23 10:17 PM


quote:

The last time I checked, the liberals  held the edge in both 2008 and 2010 in the Supreme Court, with a Democrat at the helm. I won't swear to that but I believe it's so



Thats the thing about faith Mike, it's so not dependent on knowledge.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
33 posted 2011-09-23 11:34 PM


And that is why, when not sure, it is wise to acknowledge that one may be mistaken. I see that the conservative nominees had a slight edge, 5 to 4.

The 2008 case is interesting..

Because of the controversial nature of the case, it garnered much attention from many groups on both sides of the gun rights issue. Many of those groups filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, about 47 urging the court to affirm the case and about 20 to remand it.[22]

A majority of the members of Congress[23] signed the brief authored by Stephen P. Halbrook advising that the case be affirmed overturning the ban on handguns not otherwise restricted by Congress.[24] Vice President Dick Cheney joined in this brief, acting in his role as President of the United States Senate, and breaking with the George W. Bush administration's official position.[23] Then Republican candidate for President and Arizona Senator John McCain also signed the brief. Democratic candidate and then Illinois Senator Barack Obama did not.[25]

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".[49] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.[49]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


This reads to me that Cheney and McCain went against Bush's official position, Obama went with it, and Stevens, appointed by Ford, filed a dissenting position.

So, with the president of the senate and a major Republican congressman like McCain going against it, and a conservative judge filing a dissent against it, it certainly doesn't seem to me that it followed any kind of conservative agenda. Of course I could be reading that wrong...am I?

Of course, it's also interesting that Obama supported Bush's position on it. Does that mean that the current position of Obama agrees with that supreme court decision?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
34 posted 2011-09-23 11:50 PM


With regards to the 2010 case...

Thirty-three amici curiae ("friends of the court") briefs for this case were filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.[23]

One of these briefs was filed by U.S. senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R, TX) and Jon Tester (D, MT) and U.S. representatives Mark Souder (R, IN) and Mike Ross (D, AR) asking the Supreme Court to find in favor of the petitioners and rule that the Second Amendment does apply to the states.[24] The brief was signed by 58 senators and 251 representatives, more members of Congress than any amicus curiae brief in history.[25] Furthermore, thirty-two states under the aegis of Texas (and California independently) also filed amici curiae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Once again, that doesn't seem to me to be following standard conservative rubber-stamping.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
35 posted 2011-09-24 01:07 AM


Mike, the last Chief Justice appointed by a Democratic president was Vinson, appointed by Harry Truman.  You old news hound you.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
36 posted 2011-09-24 01:11 AM


That's nice...and means what in relation to the posts I added?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

37 posted 2011-09-24 01:11 AM



quote:

The last time I checked, the liberals  held the edge in both 2008 and 2010 in the Supreme Court, with a Democrat at the helm. I won't swear to that but I believe it's so. Anyway, the supremes will be happy to know you grant them the right to interpret it as they see fit. 



     The chief Justice has been Mr. Justice Roberts since at least 2006, a Bush appointee, and the court has been conservative since well before that time.  It is understandable that you would have some confusion on the matter, since some of the early conservative appointments, such as Justice O’Connor, were actually starting to look like left wingers  by the time Justice Roberts was appointed.  These folks haqd not particularly changed their political opinions, near as I can tell, so much as the appointing Republican party had taken a very sharp turn to the right.  The Burger court, lest you forget, was also considered a conservative court, and was one.  It’s simply that the word conservative has now been redefined to describe a position that is much further to the right than it once was.

     The conservative memory for history about this sort of this seems highly selective to me.

     I believe that the Supremes have the right to interpret the constitution in the light of  current political understandings, and that these change as the country changes.

     Unlike many of the functions of the branches of the government, such as those of the executive branch and the electoral branch, however, the supremes are not a functyion that is vested with the sort of authority which they have assumed.  They assumed much of it under Chief Justice Marshalll, so they might well be appreciative of my acceptance.  Conservatives have not always been so accepting, and you should note that at no point did I indicate that I did not accept their right to make their decisions or say that their decisions overstepped their bounds, as in fact Republicans said virtually en masse about the Warren Court, when Republican opinion differed.

     My opinion differs here, and I haven’t suggested inpeachment for the Roberts Court.  

     Well, swell for me.

quote:
  
Having guns in the home may be a great idea but, as I said, was too much trouble for me; and, I thought, they made my home a target for thieves.

I have a hard time following that logic. A gun in your house makes you more of a target for thieves? Well, I suppose if you advertise in the local paper BOB K HAS GUNS IN HIS HOUSE HIDDEN IN THE DESK BY HIS BED that might be true. I know a lot of people and I cannot begin to tell you who has guns in their house and who doesn't.  ... what is making you more of a target for thieves these days (and why I have a gun in my house) is the economy.



     I might agree with you if I thought that it were true.  In fact, I may not know some of the people who have guns in their homes, but some people can’t seem to keep their mouths shut and seem to want to take out advertisements in the national media.  I can be pretty sure that Bob K, doesn’t have any guns amd that Mike actually does, and that if I want to make some dough by getting a firearm to sell at the risk of doing a burglery, well, guys, I guess I’d be completely puzzled where to go.

     And If I were living down south, I guess I’d be puzzled about where to find a gun to steal.  I’d overlook all those pickup trucks with gun-racks in the back windows with three or four shotguns or hunting rifles obscuring the rear view, and I’d just be reduced to breaking into  random places..  

     If people thought to put gun safes in the trunks of their cars, they might be a b it better off.

quote:

It also made it a more dangerous place to get into a dispute with friends and relatives.

You worry about a shoot-out with friends and relatives?



     You have worked as a part-time police officer, haven’t you, Mike?  Since you have, why are you giving me a Republican answer rather than an answer based on police experience and police statistics that most police officers are trained in?  Are you trying to tell me that most people shot in homes are  not family members or friends and acquaintances of the family?

     Even the NRA training makes a special point of gun safety at home for this particular reason; and they want people to have firearms for sporting, hunting and personal protection .  Simply because they’re gun adsvocates, doiesn’t make them idiots or foopls; they make a real effort to do things responsibly.  They encourage gun safes and gun locks and everyt piece of gun responsibility they can think of to cut down on accidental discharges and accidental woundings and deaths.  It’s unfair of you to suggest that they do this for non-existant reasons.  As somebody who does or did some sort of p[olice work, you should and probably do know better.  It’s disrespectful of you to imagine that I don’t know it too.

     I worry about friends and relatives getting hurt by firearms.  I worry about guns and alcohol.  I worry about guns and tempers.  I worry about guns and kids.  I worry about guns and people who aren’t fire-arms trained.  I worry about guns and fools and I worry about guns and accidents; and if you don’t, you shouldn’t have any of them in your house, either, unless you’ve made plans to protect yourself and others from these things.  Plans that are workablke and dependable.  Slogans are not a life-saving substitute; they only make you feel self-righteous, they don’r make you safe.

quote:

“Bob, your barbeques must be legendary, even for California!!”



     Ever since that last shindig I threw in 1982 on Mt. St. Helens, people have been discouraging me from throwing any more bar-be-ques.  They say I loose all sense of proportion.  

     What do they know?  There wasn’t enough beer, and the BBQ sauce wasn’t fiery enough.  That’s what I say.

quote:

No, Bob, I don't believe the Right, even the far Right, are stockpiling their weapons for the coming war they plan to initiate with the government. They are simply people taking steps to protect their own, and their family's, safety.



     Well. Mike, you’re probably right about the intentions here.  I’m cautious about ascribing malign intentions to people on the whole.  The problem comes when you have other people  who react to the original — quite possibly well meaning — behavior.  It becomes very difficult to continue to hold the notion of well meaning intentions in mind through several rounds of back and forth exchanges like this, each one of them open to misinterpretation.  At some point what happens is that folks on both sides will tend to forget the assumption of  well-meaningness and good intentions.

     Look back on the history of some of our own exchanges about poilitics and the assumptions that we can fall into very quickly about the meanings and intentions of the other person.  

     In many cases, the perception gets substituted for reality very quickly as the conflict gfets larger.  Think middle east or cold war, and how difficult it is even today to separate assumprion from reality from paranoia.

quote:

Interestingly enough, one of the best ways to get someone to do something is to tell them they can't. I'll wager that many people have gone out and gotten guns for their house for the additional reason that they believe the government is on the road to taking away the right to do so.



     Yes, youre right about that.

     One of the interesting ways of addressing bed wetting, for example, described in the literature (Check out Jay Haley’s book of case studies on Milton Erickson, Uncommon Therapy)  is a prescription for the child to get showered and dressed for bed, climb onto the fresh sheets, and urinate on them under the supervision of the parents.  The problem behavior often ceases within a week or two.  The parents often have some difficulty showing the proper approval, by the way.  You might find the write up interesting.  

     It falls under the rubric “Paradoxical Intention.”

     When urination is encouraged, only oulaws will urinate.
  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
38 posted 2011-09-24 01:23 AM


I see, Bob. We have now gone from pistols to pee, and from changing banned to encouraged. I disagree with so many of your points I wouldn't know where to begin...so I won't. It really wouldn't matter anyway since I'm one of those pesky conservatives with that "selective memory" who is being "disrespectful" to you. Sleep well.....
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
39 posted 2011-09-24 01:35 AM


quote:

AH, Robert, why bother  going on with this? If you can't understand who I am referring to in Missouri and Florida, then I overestimated your pursuing of the news



Sorry Mike, I was just having a little fun with you regarding the above comment and your own deficits of US history.   Of course, this is not new.  Conservatives have been running against the supreme court (which has had 9 Republican appointed Chiefs, and only 4 Democratic) as a meme (judicial activism!) for the last 30+ years.

What I really find interesting though...... nah.... nuther thread

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
40 posted 2011-09-24 08:41 AM


Nothing wrong with having a little innocent fun, LR.

Actually, I certainly wrong about the amount of conservatives on the Supreme Court but when I wrote about the Democrat "at the helm", I was referring to Obama as president, making a note to the fact that there was a liberal supreme court along with a liberal president when these rulings were made. Not specifying it the way I didn't was my bad.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

41 posted 2011-09-24 05:45 PM




     Apparently you haven't gone so far that you can't avoid dealing with specifics.  Did you think I would allow that to pass unchallenged?  If you disagree with something, out with it!  If you disagree with my understanding of the stance of the NRA, for example, then say so, and tell me how and where I'm wrong on their stance about firearm safety.

     If you think I'm wrong about the way that firearm deaths are distributed, then out with it, and give me some reasons for your disagreement.  I made any number of solid points in my posting.  If you can't respond to them, or if your response is different as a part time police officer than it is as a Republican stalwart. then say so!  Trying to dismiss solid points and solid reasoning out of hand doesn't fly.

   And you know as well as I do that the business about outlaws and guns is rhetoric more than reality; I don't know anybody who's advocating repeal of the second amendment or advocating taking guns away from gun owners.  If there were such a movement afoot, I'd probably be against it myself, though I disagree with a lot of the carry regulations.  Even in Dodge City they thought it was stupid to walk into a bar with a gun.  Guns and booze do not mix, and you can bet that most of the time when a cop eats his gun, there's booze involved, just as there's booze involved in a high proportion of accidental shootings.  Do you think the NRA defending drinking and shooting?

     I don't think so.

     Please don't throw out perfectly reasonable comments as though they were pure idiocy.  It suggests that we're not actually talking here in an effort to sort things out but in an effort to defend political positions and postures.  I'm already pretty sure what your political positions and postures are, just as you're probably pretty sure about mine.    If I were talking purely political postures, I wouldn't bother talking about my fondness for guns as art, as sport, as pure fun.  It would be a waste of time.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
42 posted 2011-09-24 09:05 PM


Bob, I would like to know why you refer to my past as being a "part-time police officer". Have I ever said anything to indicate that or is it a slur for some reason I can't imagine?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
43 posted 2011-09-24 09:57 PM


Ok, Bob, I'll play, if you insist. I will give you my reason for finding your arguments faulty and then you can respond as to why my conclusions are faulty and insist that I respond, along with accusations that, if I don't, it must show that I'm afraid to make my points, which will be points that you will show me how much you disagree with.

If you think I'm wrong about the way that firearm deaths are distributed, then out with it, and give me some reasons for your disagreement.

You have worked as a part-time police officer, haven t you, Mike?  Since you have, why are you giving me a Republican answer rather than an answer based on police experience and police statistics that most police officers are trained in?  Are you trying to tell me that most people shot in homes are  not family members or friends and acquaintances of the family?

Bob, I would like for you to show me where the number of shooting done in homes are performed by  the home owners. We are speaking of guns in homes, therefore, whatever argument you are proposing would have to mean that the gun in the home was used. Surely, if I were to come  over to my Uncle Bob K's house and I was armed and we got into an argument and I shot him, that certainly would have no connection to a gun  being in the house, would it? You claim to know about police statistic so how about checking that out, Bob, and presenting it? How many shooting are performed by homeowners in their homes against friends, family members, or acquaintenances?

In fact, I may not know some of the people who have guns in their homes, but some people can t seem to keep their mouths shut and seem to want to take out advertisements in the national media.

Some people, Bob? How many? How many people do you know walk around talking about the guns in their houses? How many have taken out ads? Your comment is, at best, silly.

  And If I were living down south, I guess I d be puzzled about where to find a gun to steal.  I d overlook all those pickup trucks with gun-racks in the back windows with three or four shotguns or hunting rifles obscuring the rear view, and I d just be reduced to breaking into  random places..

Another bit of silliness. Yes, I recognize it as an small attempt at sarcasm but you don't do it that well. I would bet a paycheck that the number of burglaries of guns in those ole redneck towns would be considerably less than in cities like Chicago or New York. Would you want to break into someone's house who drives around with a gunrack on their pickup? Not much of a future there.

Even the NRA training makes a special point of gun safety at home for this particular reason; and they want people to have firearms for sporting, hunting and personal protection .  Simply because they re gun adsvocates, doiesn t make them idiots or foopls; they make a real effort to do things responsibly.  They encourage gun safes and gun locks and everyt piece of gun responsibility they can think of to cut down on accidental discharges and accidental woundings and deaths.  It s unfair of you to suggest that they do this for non-existant reasons.

Ok, I'm lost here. I don't know where I said they do this for non-existant reasons. What I did say was....

No, Bob, I don't believe the Right, even the far Right, are stockpiling their weapons for the coming war they plan to initiate with the government. They are simply people taking steps to protect their own, and their family's, safety.

I have no problem with gun safes, gun locks and all gun responsibility. I encourage it. What have I said to make you think otherwise? That should qualify me as not being an idiot or a fool, the caveat you give to the NRA. I certainly don't advocate having guns just laying around the house, visible and accessible to anyone. Mine certainly isn't, nor is anyone I know....so what's your point?

WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.
WHEN URINATION IS ENCOURAGED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL URINATE.


That is, by far, the silliest part of your response, which makes absolutely no valid comparison at all.

Ok, Bob, you wanted my response and you have it. Feel free to dissect it any way you like. I'm losing interest.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
44 posted 2011-09-24 10:09 PM


.

Mike,

Zero tolerance.
I feel that any object one of which has ever been used in a murder
should be either banned or strictly licensed and regulated.

I also feel that anyone conscious of the danger, (which is a matter of public knowledge),
who knowingly serves another fried chicken should be investigated to the purpose of criminal
indictment.


.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
45 posted 2011-09-24 11:07 PM


.


“Defensive gun uses

NSPOF estimates. Private citizens sometimes use
their guns to scare off trespassers and fend off
assaults. Such defensive gun uses (DGUs) are
sometimes invoked as a measure of the public
benefits of private gun ownership. On the basis of
data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics'
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data,
one would conclude that defensive uses are rare
indeed, about 108,000 per year. But other surveys
yield far higher estimates of the number of DGUs.
Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of
2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994
telephone survey conducted by Florida State
University professors Gary Kleck and Mark
Gertz.[13] The 2.5 million figure has been picked
up by the press and now appears regularly in
newspaper articles, letters to the editor,
editorials, and even Congressional Research Service
briefs for public policymakers.

The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and
Gertz instrument and provides a basis for
replicating their estimate. Each of the respondents
in the NSPOF was asked the question, "Within the
past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even
if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone
else, or for the protection of property at home,
work, or elsewhere?" Answers in the affirmative
were followed with "How many different times did
you use a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect
yourself or property in the past 12 months?"
Negative answers to the first DGU question were
followed by "Have you ever used a gun to defend
yourself or someone else?" (emphasis in original).
Each respondent who answered yes to either of these
DGU questions was asked a sequence of 30 additional
questions concerning the most recent defensive gun
use in which the respondent was involved, including
the respondent's actions with the gun, the location
and other circumstances of the incident, and the
respondent's relationship to the perpetrator.

Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use
in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the
sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6
percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million
adults. Almost half of these respondents reported
multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis
for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23
million. This surprising figure is caused in part
by a few respondents reporting large numbers of
defensive gun uses during the year; for example,
one woman reported 52!

A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is
shown in the column of exhibit 7 that reflects the
application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz
to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses.
Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most
recent DGU description for any of the following
reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator;
the respondent could not state a specific crime
that was involved in the incident; or the
respondent did not actually display the gun or
mention it to the perpetrator.

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF
respondents (0.8 percent of the sample),
representing 1.5 million defensive users. This
estimate is directly comparable to the well-known
estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last
column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is
smaller, it is statistically plausible that the
difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of
multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF
respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million
DGUs.

Some troubling comparisons. If the DGU numbers are
in the right ballpark, millions of attempted
assaults, thefts, and break-ins were foiled by
armed citizens during the 12-month period.
According to these results, guns are used far more
often to defend against crime than to perpetrate
crime. (Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07
million incidents of violent crime in 1994,
according to NCVS data.)

Thus, it is of considerable interest and importance
to check the reasonableness of the NSPOF estimates
before embracing them.”


https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt
.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

46 posted 2011-09-25 02:16 AM


    
     I intend nothing derrogatory by talking about being a part time police officer.  If I have my information wrong, of course I am sorry, but I recall your speaking about having been a part-time officer during a few of your postings, and I was making reference to data that you offered.  I see nothing wrong and a lot right with that sort of experience.  I am puzzled why you’d see my reference to it in any sort of negative light at all.  I didn’t and don’t.  

     I found this article very helpful in looking at data about firearms use and the problems that folkks run into when they have firearms at home.  I’ve included a section from the text.  There is a very very extensive bibliography for you to look at, the gist is generally given in the text where the articles are cited.  
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNREFS.html


     I’ll offer you a short section that has some information directly related to our earlier discussion first, as a sort of short intro:

“The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004).”

     Now I excerpt the section of the tutorial on Statistics, Gun Control and Safety, below, which will include the above section as a small part, further down:

quote:

Statistics, Gun Control Issues, and Safety
Gunshot wounds inpact severely on the criminal justice as well as health care systems. Some basic statistics are important in understanding the magnitude and severity of the social and economic burden to the U.S. The subject remains contentious. (Glantz and Annas, 2009)
In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006).
The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)
The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2001. The highest rate was 34.5/100,000 for African-American males, more than double the rate of 16.3/100,000 for white males and well above the rate of 2.7/100,000 for white females. (CDC, 2004)
A study of firearm deaths in high income countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), United Kingdom (Scotland), and the United States) was conducted with data from the World Health Organization assembled by the WHO from the official national statistics of each individual country from 2003 by Richardson and Hemenway, 2011. The total population for the United States for 2003 was 290.8 million while the combined population for the other 22 countries was 563.5 million. There were 29,771 firearm deaths in the US and 7,653 firearm deaths in the 22 other countries. Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US. In the US the overall firearm death rate was 10.2 per 100,000, the overall firearm homicide rate 4.1 per 100,000, and the overall homicide rate 6.0 per 100,000, with firearm homicide rates highest persons 15 to 24 years of age. For the US the overall suicide rate was 10.8 per 100,000, and slightly over half of these deaths were firearm suicide (5.8 per 100,000). Firearm suicides rates increased with age. In the other high income countries 2003 the overall firearm death rate was 1.4 per 100,000, the overall firearm homicide rate 0.2 per 100,000, and the overall homicide rate 0.9 per 100,000. Firearm homicide rates were highest in the 25 year old to 34 year old age group. The overal suicide rate was 14.9 per 100,000 with a overall firearm suicide rate of 1.0 per 100,000.
A comparison across countries for an earlier time period is shown below.
Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000, age adjusted) for Selected Countries in one year between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)

Gun Control Issues, Public Health, and Safety
The number of firearms injuries remains high in the United States, compared with most of the rest of the world. Firearm suicide rates are strongly impacted by the rate of gun ownership. (Kaplan and Geling, 1998) There is a positive correlation between homicide rates and availability of guns in developed nations. (Hemenway and Miller, 2000) The number of firearms in the hands of private citizens continues to grow each year at a rate far exceeding that of the population as a whole. It might even be said that Americans live in a "gun culture" based upon traditions and behaviors well-entrenched in our society. This is reflected in our constitution, whose second amendment guarantees that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Though the application of this amendment applied to maintenance of a militia, and not private gun ownership, the second amendment has been consistently interpreted to protect private ownership of many types of guns.
Thus, the laws of our Federal government as well as the states do not as yet severely restrict the manufacture, sale, and use of firearms by ordinary citizens. "Gun control" is a sensitive issue that evokes strong emotions in persons both for and against control. Politicians find it difficult to deal with this issue. There is disagreement as to whether a reduction in access to or numbers of firearms will have a measurable effect upon crime. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act passed in 1994 in the U.S. established a nationwide requirement that licensed firearms dealers observe a waiting period and initiate a background check for handgun sales (but the law does not apply to secondary markets). So far, this law has not been associated with overall reductions in homicide rate or suicide rate.(Ludwig and Cook, 2000) Perhaps our attitudes--and our tolerances--are reflected in the high visibility of firearms and firearms-inflicted injuries that are portrayed in the media: newspapers, magazines, books, films, and television. (Price et al, 1992) One thing remains certain, despite laws for or against gun control, a lack of care and concern regarding one's fellow human beings, whether in war or through domestic violence, will continue to promote firearms injuries.
Child safety is an important issue. Firearms injuries are the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2004) Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994) The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim. (Harruff, 1992) In the period from 1979 to 2000, accidental firearms deaths involving children declined in the U.S., aided by child access prevention laws and felony prosecution of offenders. (Hepburn et al, 2006) A study of nonnatural deaths in a large American city revealed that half of such deaths in persons from 10 to 19 years of age were due to homicide, and firearms were involved in 88% of them. (Heninger and Hanzlick, 2008)
The table below indicates mode of death for firearms injuries in the ten countries with the most reported deaths from firearms for children less than 15 years of age. (CDC, 1997)
Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age
Top 10 Countries - Rate per 100,000

In one survey, 10% of families admitted to having unlocked and loaded firearms within easy reach of children (Patterson and Smith, 1987). Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occured in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. (Morrow and Hudson, 1986) A study from 1991-2000 showed that twice as many people died from unintentional firearm injuries in states in the U.S. where firearm owners were more likely to store their firearms loaded. (Miller, et al, 2005)
The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.
Hunting accidents with firearms, despite the large gun ownership in the U.S. and numerous game seasons in most states, remain relatively rare and do not appear to be increasing. (Huiras, et al, 1990) A study in Sweden indicated a rate of 0.074/100,000 and that, when hunting big game, most accidents resulted from a mistaken target. When hunting small game, accidents occurred most frequently as a result of mishandling the gun. Hunting accidents did not increase with increasing gun ownership or numbers of hunters. (Ornehult and Eriksson, 1987)




     Not wanting to overload you, I’ll stop here for now before taking another shot at your attempt to respond to me.  I do appreciate your efforts here, and I want you to know that.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

47 posted 2011-09-25 02:37 AM




     I'm not interested in trying to kick all the happy drinkers off their bar stools, John.  I do think that when their happiness kills my kids and my friends through accident, misadventure, carelessness or grandiosity that there ought to be consequences and some attempt at regulation should be made.  If their fun ends up destroys or curtails of has serious negative impact on another person's life, then there's something wrong with the product.

     If it's heroin or cocaine, we've gone too far in the way we manage them.  We've developed and encouraged a black market that has evils of its own that may be as bad as the substance we're trying to regulate.  It would surely be a matter of equal stupidity if we tried to do the same thing with guns, don't you think?

     Yet some societies, such as Switzerland, seem to have a much more   workable relationship with guns than we do.  They have a freer relationship with automatic weapons with far fewer adverse events in consequence.  I don't want to stop having guns in our society; I want to understand what societies that have fewer gun deaths and still have easy access to fire-arms are doing to make things work more safely.

     Perhaps there's something about that goal that makes me a figure of fun for you.  I'd like to know what that is?  Is it that think guns are a good thing to have around?  Is it that I want fewer people to get killed by them than we already have getting killed by them?  Do you think I'm a wuss for not wanting more Americans to die than absolutely have to?  I mean, what's the deal here, John?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
48 posted 2011-09-25 06:43 AM


Bob, most of your data seems to be about firearms in the house that cause injuries or death due to mishandling, accidents or misuse. As with the NRA, I condemn those who do not have their weapons locked up or placed in areas where children or others can find them or get access to them. Having said that, we can equally apply your reasoning to cars or having prescription drugs in houses. Haow many deaths or injuries occur due to mishandling of automobiles? Do we then insist that cars be taken off the roads? How many accidental overdoses occur or injuries by children getting into the medicine cabinet? Do we ban drugs in the home? No, in both instances, and the third with firearms, we preach intelligence, common sense, and prudence, and education. All of this is far from the point, however, which got us off on this tangent, which was the ridiculous belief by some on the left that citizens are arming themselves in preparation of a civil war.

If I have my information wrong, of course I am sorry, but I recall your speaking about having been a part-time officer during a few of your postings, and I was making reference to data that you offered.

Your recall is in error. I offered no such data and wore the uniform proudly, day after day. We don't have part-time police officers down here. I accept your apology.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

49 posted 2011-09-25 07:15 PM


     Then I must apologize about my recollection.  I had thought that it was part-time, which I find worthy as well.  I don't see why that would be offensive, though I take the correction and say I'm sorry for getting my facts wrong.

     Certainly, your comments about drugs and cars are interesting.  You might have noted my comments on the same subject, above, and noted that I am not in favor of banning fire-arms, though you continue to address me as though that was the position I was supporting.  That may be because it is a position which it is simpler to address than the one I advocate.

     You will notice the problem with your position on guns as opposed to cars and drugs, however, if you think about it.

     The expressed purpose in this case — self defense — of gun use  that is given for keeping guns in the house is far far far outweighed by the uses the guns find in producing wounds and fatalities from suicides, murders, accidental discharges and other uses detailed in the report I quoted.  Any drug that produced a record like that would not be allowed on the market; it would be considered too unsafe for human use.  Any car that produced a driving record like that would be removed from the market, and the law-suites brought against it would ensure that its maker would have to, at a minimum, redesign it substantially before permitting it to see the light of day again.  It would likely be recalled to install some major product modifications before the public would be allowed to use it again.

     Your analogy is one that you have doubtless heard bandied about in gun industry and gun ownership circles before, but, as you can see, a slightly closer examination of the analogy shows it to be fatally flawed.  I am sorry, because it does sound so crushing.

     If you'll check, you'll find that a lot of the firearm incidents are not from mishandling, or from misuse, but come from folks who try to be careful about the way they keep and use them.  I am sorry to point this out, because I've been thinking a lot in recent years how nice it would be to pick up a Woodsman or some relatively inexpensive .22 long-rifle carbine and go join a range and go target shooting again.   The things really are dangerous to keep around the house, even if you're a fanatic about them and the way to keep them.  That doesn't mean I won't try anyway. Eventually, mind you.  I have had friends who've ended up putting a round into themselves — a thigh, by accident — and I know it's not an uncommon event.  I'm reasonably sure you know the same thing.

     There are places where there aren't as many gun deaths.  I mentioned Switzerland before.

     What are they doing in Switzerland that we could do here?  I don't think that their laws are very different from ours, but their deaths are much lower, and there are a lot more automatic weapons around than there are here.  What's the difference?  Why are they so unsafe here and so (reasonably) safe there?

     What do you hear, Balladeer?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
50 posted 2011-09-25 07:49 PM


What are they doing in Switzerland that we could do here? I believe the lifestyle is a bit different in the two countries, Bob, and that is certainly not saying that ours is better, only different. One, for example, would claim neutrality in a world war while the other would make the difference in winning the war. I would applaud the country able to maintain their neutrality but I would thank God for the country willing to fight for freedom.    Comparing the two would be apples and oranges. there are a lot more automatic weapons around than there are here. I confess that surprises me.    From where do you get that information?

Any drug that produced a record like that would not be allowed on the market; it would be considered too unsafe for human use.

Oh, did the government outlaw smoking while I wasn't looking??

I don't see why that would be offensive, though I take the correction and say I'm sorry for getting my facts wrong.

No big deal, Bob. Perhaps if someone referred to you as a part-time psycologist or psychiatrist, it could rankle you a bit...or not. Your words are kindly accepted.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

51 posted 2011-09-25 09:56 PM


     Smoking is too unsafe to pass muster as a safe drug, and has never been under the FDA to my knowledge.  It may be the sound of all that shooting has rattled your memory a bit.  

     Switzerland requires every male head of household — or used to, my information is about 15 years old — to have and maintain an automatic rifle in the house and at least 20 rounds of amunition for it.  While we may have more firearms overall, fully automatic weapons are much harder to come by and are generally illegal for private owners unless certain restrictions are complied with. Yes, I know conversion kits are available that will turn semi-automatic rifles of some sorts into automatic rifles, and that they can be purchased at gun shows, where people seem to come down with remarkable clusters of amnesia outbreaks on a regular basis, just as they seem to do about surpressers.  

      But every home in these United States is not required to have an automatic rifle in functioning condition, and the reverse is true in Switzerland.  The Swiss are quite serious about their weapons and about having their citizenry competent in the use of weapons.  There are few things as serious as a serious Swiss citizen, and this is one of the things about which they have little or no sense of humor.

     The entire country is one fortified redoubt after another.  They are grim about their freedom, and as serious about it as Americans are about about our own.  They are also downright prickly about other people telling them what is free and what isn't in their own country.  Their as touchy as old blasting caps.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
52 posted 2011-09-25 10:31 PM


Any car that produced a driving record like that would be removed from the market,

Last time I checked, cars are not under the FDA, either, Bob, and yet you used them as being an example of something being unsafe that would be removed from the market and yet you chastize me for using cigarettes? Yes, I can see that some brain is rattled here. Try again.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
53 posted 2011-09-25 10:32 PM


.


Aren't there a lot of guns in Israel?
How are they doing?


.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

54 posted 2011-09-26 02:26 AM




quote:


Last time I checked, cars are not under the FDA, either, Bob, and yet you used them as being an example of something being unsafe that would be removed from the market and yet you chastise me for using cigarettes? Yes, I can see that some brain is rattled here. Try again.



     Maybe you can explain the logic of that to me, Mike.  It made no sense at all.

     I followed it roughly right to the point where you said that I used them as an example, which made sense, sort of ... .  I understand that you're still trying to get parts for your Corvair and your old Pinto, but I put that down to Mike being Mike.  The fact that  the dangers involved in both models forced them off the market would be something that I'd expect you to understand.  Pretending that you don't suggests that you have no grasp of market economics and voting with your feet, and I really do know better than that.  It's one of the foundation points for conservative economic theory.  Pretending ignorance is just you being disingenuous in a folksy kind of way.

     What I'm seriously puzzled by is why you would possibly say something like "and yet you chastise me for using cigarettes?"  

     Is there some reason that I'm supposed to have pegged you for being a smoker?

     And is there some reason I should chastise you for it?

     It already sounds as though you have whatever information you need, and that whatever the decision you've made, you need whatever help you can tolerate in quitting, should you wish to do so, or in enjoying the habit as much as you can now.  Whatever I can do in whichever direction, please let me know, unless you think it's none of my business.  I certainly never thought about your smoking habits at all.  I found dealing with quitting first cigarettes, then cigars and then pipes difficult enough on my own.  I wish I could still smoke and feel good about it.  I remember it fondly and dream about the habit(s) frequently.

     That aside, I wouldn't recommend you start if you weren't smoking already, and both of us know it's seriously unsafe, and that whether or not it delivers lung cancer it certainly screws up breathing capacity for a high proportion of long term smokers.

     Guns are different from cigarettes in that guns are at their base, tools, and as such have some social utility.  

     You may notice that I made no such claim about guns, which do have some utility.  It's simply that the way we manage them here in the United States is in some fashion considerably different than the way folks handle them in some other countries, where the numbers of gun fatalities are far lower.

     You shouldn't have something around where the very presence of the thing makes the situation worse.  With medicines, they'd be taken off the market.  With cars they'd have to be sent back to the drawing board.  With cigarettes, they can at this point afford to buy the legislators who regulate the industry, and make sure that legislators that are not reasonably pliable are unlikely to be elected.

     You also may have missed the section of one of my above posts where I said that I was against outlawing drugs because that put the black market beyond all control.  It certainly seems to have worked that way with both alcohol and cigarettes, which we can tax and regulate to some extent, and which we can also sue when needed.  These rights bring some sort of control onto these industries which would not otherwise exist.  The same situation applies to some extent to the auto industry.

     The gun industry has done a pretty good job of evading many of these controls, in my opinion, and has not come under very robust legal control.

     What is it you said you were smoking again?  What kind of cigarettes were they?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
55 posted 2011-09-26 07:56 AM


Bob, you are priceless! I'll be back when I have time for this silliness...
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

56 posted 2011-09-26 11:42 AM




     I am priceless, aren't I?

     Why thank you, Mike!

     And you are Priceless, too.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

57 posted 2011-09-26 08:00 PM


     In answer to your question, John.

     We have a lot of guns here in California, too, John, and so far we've made sure that we haven't been invaded by people from Aruzona and New Mexico and those people out in Utah, though the Utah contingent has had us holding our breath a couple of times, I gotta tell you.  

     We've also kept the Martians at bay pretty good, at least most of the time.  I hear tell that Rhode Island is building tanks to invade us, so you folks in Indiana or Oshkosh or St. Louis or one of them other mid-western States better stock up on ammo and fight 'em off first.  We hear that the State of Saint Louis has a lot of them Mexican immigrants in there, and they might  develop a taste for your cattle and your young maidens.

     I hadn't heard that those New Yorkers were all that fond of guns, though, and then you tell me that the Israelis have got a whole bunch of them.  Who knew?  Are they still fighting them arabs off from the  Washington Heights?  Heck oif a war that one was, I tell you.

     Best wishes from out here in Hollywood.

     Yosemite Bob!

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
58 posted 2011-09-27 12:02 PM


Bob, if you had a rascal scooter and a triangle hat - I'd be worried!  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

59 posted 2011-09-27 02:09 AM




     Yee Haw, Reb!  Just keep reloading  and cut the cute comebacks there, boy!  I'm on a roll.

     The President had dinner in a restaurant not half a dozen blocks from here this evening.  My wife and I went there for my birthday.  If I'd known that reservations were that hard to come by, I'da been proud to let him have mine back in March.

     Wahoo!

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

60 posted 2011-09-27 02:14 AM




    
"Logic, that hutch for Grubby schoolboys!"

                                      —Theodore Roethke

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

61 posted 2011-09-27 06:44 PM


     After having gotten my own spasm of silliness out of my system for the moment, I thought I'd go back to the basic point I was raising with Mike.

quote:

     Guns [are tools ... and ...] have some utility.  It's simply that the way we manage them here in the United States is in some fashion considerably different than the way folks handle them in some other countries, where the [... percentage ... ] of gun fatalities are far lower.

     You shouldn't have something around where the very presence of the thing makes the situation worse.  With medicines, they'd be taken off the market.  With cars they'd have to be sent back to the drawing board. [...]

     You also may have missed the section of one of my above posts where I said that I was against outlawing drugs because that put the black market beyond all control.  It certainly seems to have worked that way with both alcohol and cigarettes, which we can tax and regulate to some extent, and which we can also sue when needed.  These rights bring some sort of control onto these industries which would not otherwise exist.  The same situation applies to some extent to the auto industry.

     The gun industry has done a pretty good job of evading many of these controls, in my opinion, and has not come under very robust legal control.



     The gun industry seems to function under a series of special protections, and not always to the advantage of the public.  I have heard, once or twice in these pages, complaints on the violence of the Mexican drug cartels, and the notion of Mexican violence with automatic weapons coming North has been cause for complaint and alarm, especially during our immigration discussions.

     The Mexican government is also concerned with that gun violence.  They have sent diplomatic notes to our government protesting our own government's lack of policing of our own weapons industry, which seems to be the source of many of those automatic weapons that have been tearing up Mexico.  They may now be coming back across the border, though they are not Mexican in origin but are apparently American as Apple Pie.

     Forgive me if I don't say, "Yum."

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » shoot the message

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary