US: 30 shot at school, China: 22 knifed at school

Only insecure assholes promote gun ownership in the USA. They also have tiny penises.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unbelievable. I posted the same idea tongue in cheek but it's sad when that's the best our gun advocate leadership can come up with as a "solution". Shoot yourself in the foot there NRA...

(And I enjoy hunting and target shooting. Wow.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

12 year olds are supposed to be able to do what trained POLICE can't you have got to be kidding. I'm starting to feel sorry for canada and mexico having to live next to these freaks. Maybe we should all donate to a fund which can be used to build a giant fence around the US and ensure that no aircraft\boat leaves the country to protect the civilized societies. Hell maybe we could fund it with a reality TV show "survivor US" where we drop willing contestants into the US to see if they can survive a week there or would that be considered to cruel and unethical even for reality TV?

 

Sorry for the confusion Bells. The NRA position is a fun fantasy in a juvenile sense but as a realistic proposal on national policy? I don't think so...


This is my relevant posting history from the Sandy Hook thread:

Post 25 -

Post 54 -

I referenced my POV in a brief discussion with you here:

Upon more thought I find that the problem is so very deep rooted in our culture that even our Christmas songs reflect our fascination with the gun culture. From "It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like Christmas"...

Wow. What else would an American boy desire for a present? I never really looked at the problem in terms of sociologically ingrained philosophy before. I grew up around guns and hunting as a way of life. Later I encountered firearms in many different contexts and have experience with over twenty different rifles, shotguns and pistols. It only recently occurred to me that other countrys' cultures differed so extremely on this issue even though I have traveled extensively. If gun control works for others why not for us? The whole idea of bearing arms to protect the people from a government gone amok just doesn't hold water anymore. As someone else pointed out, one would need an arsenal of explosives, tanks, missiles and such to even think of this as a serious reason to uphold the second amendment. The days of muskets and militias are long gone.

Having said all that, I still believe in the right of an individual to possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes. In today's world I think those "legitimate purposes" are somewhat more constrained than in the eighteenth century. Hunting, self defense (on an individual basis), collecting, target shooting - yes. Armegeddon scenarios? I think not.

So where does this leave us? The only really viable solution I see to balance freedom and safety would have to lie in a technological solution - i.e. guns matched to their owners via fingerprint activation mechanisms or some such. While this might not prevent all gun related violence it would go a long way if it were feasible to implement. However, even that would leave us with the gargantuan problem of what to do with the millions of existing weapons already in circulation. For that, I have NO solution. Again, our culture is so rooted in guns as a way of life that the very thought of giving them up is antithema to many if not most Americans. I for one do not want to surrender mine. Nonetheless, something MUST be done. Hmmmm. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out over the next few months / years...

Yes, moving along...

And women are defenseless creatures utterly dependent upon the "menfolk" to protect them. An anachronism if ever I heard one.

Right. I highly doubt she has any idea what combat is like. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Sometimes I'm ashamed of the depths of ignorance my countryfolk exhibit. *Sigh*

 

Are you trying to get on TV Asguard? Amazing the lengths people will go to for that dubious honor...

 

My reply is kicking around the Mod queue somewhere. Could you do me a favor and see if it can get approved Bells?

 

No big deal. I meant to post it here but perhaps I screwed up somehow. I'll try again...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry for the confusion Bells. The NRA position is a fun fantasy in a juvenile sense but as a realistic proposal on national policy? I don't think so...

This is my relevant posting history from the Sandy Hook thread:

Post 25 -

Post 54 -

I referenced my POV in a brief discussion with you here:

Upon more thought I find that the problem is so very deep rooted in our culture that even our Christmas songs reflect our fascination with the gun culture. From "It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like Christmas"...

Wow. What else would an American boy desire for a present? I never really looked at the problem in terms of sociologically ingrained philosophy before. I grew up around guns and hunting as a way of life. Later I encountered firearms in many different contexts and have experience with over twenty different rifles, shotguns and pistols. It only recently occurred to me that other countrys' cultures differed so extremely on this issue even though I have traveled extensively. If gun control works for others why not for us? The whole idea of bearing arms to protect the people from a government gone amok just doesn't hold water anymore. As someone else pointed out, one would need an arsenal of explosives, tanks, missiles and such to even think of this as a serious reason to uphold the second amendment. The days of muskets and militias are long gone.

Having said all that, I still believe in the right of an individual to possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes. In today's world I think those "legitimate purposes" are somewhat more constrained than in the eighteenth century. Hunting, self defense (on an individual basis), collecting, target shooting - yes. Armegeddon scenarios? I think not.

Sowhere does this leave us? The only really viable solution I see to balance freedom and safety would have to lie in a technological solution - i.e. guns matched to their owners via fingerprint activation mechanisms or some such. While this might not prevent all gun related violence it would go a long way if it were feasible to implement. However, even that would leave us with the gargantuan problem of what to do with the millions of existing weapons already in circulation. For that, I have NO solution. Again, our culture is so rooted in guns as a way of life that the very thought of giving them up is antithema to many if not most Americans. I for one do not want to surrender mine. Nonetheless, something MUST be done. Hmmmm. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out over the next few months / years...

Yes, lets.

Yes. And women are apparently defenseless creatures utterly dependent upon the "menfolk" to protect them. An anachronism if ever I heard one.

Right. I highly doubt she has any idea what combat is like and therefore is completely unqualified to gauge how she would react under the circumstances, let alone advise anyone else. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The nuts falling from the trees are totally ludicrous. Perhaps the American voters will wake up this time around. One can only hope.

 

Here in this thread. I tried again but got the same response. My post contains links to Sci threads which always seems to queue to the Mods.

 

Unfortunately, I don’t think anything meaningful is going to result from Sandy Hook. The NRA has now set in stone its official policy and Republicans have fallen in line. As long as the House remains in the hands of Republicans any meaningful gun reform is just not possible. You can see how problematic it is with this Republican controlled House to even put together a reasonable budget and to keep the lights on (e.g. The Fiscal Cliff). Given the fact that the Republican controlled House has this much trouble just paying the bills, how likely do you think it is that they can pass meaningful gun reforms that would adversely affect one of their main financial and political sponsors?

 

Unrelated fun facts:

" Violence in the USA has decreased to 1/3 of what it was in 1973."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150464/Americans-Believe-Crime-Worsening.aspx

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Guess when the internet started to take off? You are right, 1994....

 

Third try.

Sorry for the confusion Bells. The NRA position is a fun fantasy in a juvenile sense but as a realistic proposal on national policy? I don't think so...

This is my relevant posting history from the Sandy Hook thread:

Post 25 -

Post 54 -

I referenced my POV in a brief discussion with you here:

Upon more thought I find that the problem is so very deep rooted in our culture that even our Christmas songs reflect our fascination with the gun culture. From "It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like Christmas"...

Wow. What else would an American boy desire for a present? I never really looked at the problem in terms of sociologically ingrained philosophy before. I grew up around guns and hunting as a way of life. Later I encountered firearms in many different contexts and have experience with over twenty different rifles, shotguns and pistols. It only recently occurred to me that other countrys' cultures differed so extremely on this issue even though I have traveled extensively. If gun control works for others why not for us? The whole idea of bearing arms to protect the people from a government gone amok just doesn't hold water anymore. As someone else pointed out, one would need an arsenal of explosives, tanks, missiles and such to even think of this as a serious reason to uphold the second amendment. The days of muskets and militias are long gone.

Having said all that, I still believe in the right of an individual to possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes. In today's world I think those "legitimate purposes" are somewhat more constrained than in the eighteenth century. Hunting, self defense (on an individual basis), collecting, target shooting - yes. Armegeddon scenarios? I think not.

So where does this leave us? The only really viable solution I see to balance freedom and safety would have to lie in a technological solution - i.e. guns matched to their owners via fingerprint activation mechanisms or some such. While this might not prevent all gun related violence it would go a long way if it were feasible to implement. However, even that would leave us with the gargantuan problem of what to do with the millions of existing weapons already in circulation. For that, I have NO solution. Again, our culture is so rooted in guns as a way of life that the very thought of giving them up is anathema to many if not most Americans. I for one do not want to surrender mine. Nonetheless, something MUST be done. Hmmmm. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out over the next few months / years...

Yes, lets.

Yes. And women are defenseless creatures utterly dependent upon the "menfolk" to protect them. An anachronism if ever I heard one.

Right. I highly doubt she has any idea what combat is like and therefore has no way to predict how she or others would react under fire. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

None of those guys had automatic weapons.

 

They can elsewhere. They aren't. How many times do I need point that out?

Anticipation of responses to the NRA advocates. It isn't terribly difficult to understand Tiassa.
All one need do is repeat publicly, over and over, the more silly statements, and control the debate via ridicule, while projecting the appearance of sanity and reason.
Just ask Pauline Hanson. Did you happen to follow that little debacle?
Y'all see what they did there?

From the other thread:

Afghanistan.
You're a big wuss, Bells.

Sure, might never happen.
Only problem is, it already is. Tiny little things you're barely noticing. Except, of course, in your case I know you have noticed. But you're afraid to look at the big picture, and you keep trying to impose more control. As often as I tell you that isn't the way, you persist.
Control. More control. Still more control.
At what point are you going to lose control of the controls? You? Your children, your grandchildren?

You don't see it because you're of those who believes they're in the right, and has the "moral majority" behind them.
You've accused me of being arrogant and always believing I'm right, but I don't believe I'm right any more than you do.
I sigh with frustration every day, and you hide the fact that you do too.
So how you gonna act?

You've accused me of dragging everything into some great big philosophical debate, Bells, but the thing you don't see is that everything is. All of these little things are a part of something else. Gun control, abortion, gay rights... all of these little things are a part of great thing.
A great, unfolding story. How does the story end?

So no, I'm not going to go away because I get tired of talking about small things. I'm not going to give up because there are forty thousand who think I'm an arrogant jerk who never thinks of what it would be like like if they were my children.
And I'm certainly not going to stop getting drunk and laughing at you all. Only in my case it's the kind of laughter which ensues when you see some drunk throw up at a party.

I'll take a slim hope against none, any day.
At least the opportunity to die in any way other than on my knees against someone who keeps trying to tell me what I can and cannot do, who believes beyond reason and right of reply that they are right and I am wrong, and takes steps to ensure all future generations believe the same, until there are none left capable of thinking otherwise.



.......

You asked me if I have any answers. No, I don't.
But don't ever make the mistake of thinking that that means I should accept yours.

 

The RINO question

In truth, I'm not sure it's fair to call Michael Steele a "die hard Republican".

That is to say, he's a regular guest on MSNBC, and quite friendly with the network's liberal hosts. And the GOP itself seems to have a strange regard for the former chairman. Think of it this way: Steele recovered the party after the 2008 loss, built them up to the 2010 victory, and then got dropped. Reince Priebus, on the other hand, took over after that 2010 victory, led the GOP through a disastrous period that saw Barack Obama re-elected, the Democratic majority in the Senate widened, and a GOP house victory dependent entirely on redistricting. Additionally, the state-level Republican operations have alienated women, ethnic and religious minorities, the working poor, and much of the laboring middle class. Yet Priebus gets another term.

Steele's problem, inside the GOP, is that he isn't conservative enough. He's a Republican as I'm accustomed to remembering the party before the Clinton presidency and Republican Revolution of '94.

Which is to say that whenever you hear a Republican waxing poetic about Ronald Reagan's heroism, simply remember that those Republicans are insufficiently Republican for today's Republicans.

Steele is a politician, not an idealogue. He, like the "Ol' Moderate" Mitt Romney everyone expected in the 2012 election, is a product of a bygone era. He is a policy-oriented conservative realist, one who puts community and nation—i.e., the "public" part of "public service"—before party and cause. Mr. Steele finds himself not so much drifting from the party, but watching the party drift away from him. I might have japed and jibed him when he was a sideways-hat-wearin' GOP chairman, 'cuz that's how he rolls, baby, but I would much rather, for the good of the nation, have Michael Steele sitting across the table during policy negotiations instead of Boehner, Cantor, or McConnell.

With Steele, there is a chance of getting some good work done.

And that, of course, is the problem today's GOP sees in its former chief.

There is an old joke about how a Democrat will tell you that he can make you stronger, smarter, richer, and more attractive. Oh, and he'll get the chickweed out of your lawn. Meanwhile, the Republian will tell you that government doesn't work. And then he gets elected and proves it.

One of the fundamental paradoxes in American politics is that the right wing essentially applies for a job by telling us how unimportant and even useless the job is. While the GOP might be bringing American governance to a grinding halt, we should not be surprised. After all, they're the party that now lives and dies by the notion that government doesn't work.

And, well, Mr. Steele just isn't as good at that sort of politicking as the GOP needs.

Apparently.

Or something.

If you run down the list of conservative voices unsettled by LaPierre's presser, a pattern emerges. Those who engage in politics are appalled. Those who engage in ideological warfare are either on the trolley, or hedging their bets, as Erick Erickson did, suggesting maybe the timing was wrong but everything else was okay.

Steele and the political analysts play chess. LaPierre and the idealogues look at the chessboard, and figure it makes good skeet.
____________________

Notes:

Holpuch, Amanda. "NRA's statement on the Newtown shootings: the conservative reaction". The Guardian. December 21, 2012. Guardian.co.uk. December 27, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/21/nra-statement-newtown-conservative-reaction

 

Dick Armey Should Be Dead

Dick Armey Should Be Dead ...
... or maybe not. We don't know because, apparently, nobody else had a gun

What could one possibly mean when referring to America's "gun culture" that sees firearms as a potential solution for anything and everything?

Political consultant Dick Armey has the answer:

The day after Labor Day, just as campaign season was entering its final frenzy, FreedomWorks, the Washington-based tea party organization, went into free fall.

Richard K. Armey, the group’s chairman and a former House majority leader, walked into the group’s Capitol Hill offices with his wife, Susan, and an aide holstering a handgun at his waist. The aim was to seize control of the group and expel Armey’s enemies: The gun-wielding assistant escorted FreedomWorks’ top two employees off the premises, while Armey suspended several others who broke down in sobs at the news.

The coup lasted all of six days. By Sept. 10, Armey was gone — with a promise of $8 million — and the five ousted employees were back.

(Gardner)​

To the one: Guns work! A hired goon with a gun helped Armey secure eight million dollars.

To the other: If only! Armey probably wouldn't have gotten his eight million if someone else had been carrying a gun. I don't know how many people were actually in the FreedomWorks office that day, but I bet the body count would be a lot easier to tally than eight million.

But this is our gun culture.

You don't like the way your astroturf organization is faring in the electoral cycle? Bring in a hired gun and start ordering people out of the building. How could anyone not see the brilliant simplicity of such a virtuous plan?

Well, as Jonathan Capehart suggests, "There is something wrong when someone gets his or her point across by flashing a gun."

Of course, it is FreedomWorks, a kiln for right-wing crackpottery, so ... right.

Settle it with guns? Yeah, in a way that makes sense. But only because it's a kiln for right-wing crackpottery.

Nobody actually got shot that day? Well, yeah. They'd rather shoot liberals.

American gun culture: No blood, no foul.
____________________

Notes:

Gardner, Amy. "FreedomWorks tea party group nearly falls apart in fight between old and new guard". The Washington Post. December 25, 2012. WashingtonPost.com. December 28, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...095b68-4545-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html

Capehart, Jonathan. "Dick Armey’s loathsome gun show". PostPartisan. December 26, 2012. WashingtonPost.com. December 28, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2012/12/26/dick-armeys-loathsome-gun-show/