No issue with her. Just an issue with your conclusion, which was "Ok ---research yes." That is clearly not the case, based on actual facts rather than what people say. Yep. Good thing that there are no NFL owners in the government who would cut the CDC's budget by exactly the amount being used to study concussions.
Well, we can start with your (ahem!) exhortation on behalf of stalkers in #3204234/32↗, dated 1 July 2014: The people advocating gun regulation are foul little gits with an authoritarian agenda - is that really the point you want to make? Well, you wouldn't be alone - it's been made, inadvertently to be sure, over and over, on TV and in the newspaper and right here, as we hear them tell us about the nature of those who do not agree that guns are useless and therefore should be removed from private hands by whatever means necessary and on whatever justification is available. One reason the eminently sensible laws mentioned are opposed by so many, not just the NRA, is that they don't trust the source. Amy Klobuchar is not a terrible Senator, but if not watched she will make bicycle helmets mandatory, canoeing without actually wearing a lifejacket illegal, fireworks available only to licensed professionals, that kind of thing. The term "Nanny State" might have been coined for her utopia. And that poisons the well. And it is a matter of record that on 28 December, 2017, in #3495188/343↗, you tried to attribute your own post to another author. Your assessments— —are unreliable; it would be helpful if you would please #startmakingsense No, really, Iceaura, all you're saying is that holding a firearms advocate to his words is seen as threatening. And the thing about that outburst, what makes it relevant even today, is that it is a nexus of two issues about which you appear to fall back to an internal narrative that only makes sense to you. Additionally, you've tried to blame someone else for your own post. Many reasonable people will mistrust those who behave like that. So, yeah, your delineation of this or that "side" is unreliable. Your perception of threat is unreliable. And look at your proposition; it is designed to be unanswerable. I've already noted that people are pissed about Heller. Secondly, I also noted that people are pissed off about hearing how the Second is some sacred cow and stumbling block, and normally I wouldn't worry about what one fails to include in a quote, but it also looks like exclusion when you're also trying to evade the point; and, honestly, it's an easy enough construction to speculate according to psychology, but that would get us nowhere as in the end the definitions you attend according to your priority are demonstrably unreliable. Still, consider Florida, where the legislature could arm teachers—requiring elevenfold firearms training to diversity training—but needed another go at firearms safety, and still couldn't bring themselves to take a substantial chunk out of access to the semiautomatic, assault-style rifles used for mass killings. No wonder you want to exclude the "NRA agitprop" compelling lawmakers to abide the sacred cow and stumbling block; your point about the "both sides" problem orbits the facts of how people have responded to "NRA agitprop" over the years. Then again, neither is the exclusion surprising; when it coumes to "reasonable and sound gun control regulation", your prior remarks on behalf of stalkers with guns really does remind you are an unreliable arbiter. Your assessments on these issues aren't sober, and don't make sense. Pretending some "mystery" about why people are considering the Second Amendment is actually rather quite silly. It's like our neighbor on the point about CDC: Receiving firearms morbidity and mortality data in an epidemiological framework is problematic under the Dickey Amendment; Congress made its point at the time, as well, with concomitant appropriations reallocation. The firearms lobby grift, at this point, is balbutive.
iceaura, are you saying that people are fearful not so much of gun control regulation but of the power a government may be granted to legislate gun control regulations? Noting or highlighting the distinction is what you seem to be driving at... yes?
At which point the same old question: how illiterate or otherwise unable to comprehend English prose are we supposed to assume you are? Because any ascription of innocence to this kind of posting from you depends on quite a load of such assumption. And without that innocence, you are fairly illustrating the point I made: Which is another way of saying that your psychological problems should be handled on your own time, and not dumped into other people's posting on this forum. No, I didn't. That entire mistake on your part is irrelevant here. And you are not that illiterate, or unable to follow ordinary argument, or unaware of the role of your posting - that is an ugly line, you are refusing to abandon for dishonorable reasons. Shorthand: you're full of shit again. No, it isn't. It is designed to highlight the fact that you have no answer. Your entire line of bs is exactly as described - one side of a bothsides problem, a real life situation in which "both sides" (self described) are untrustworthy wingnuts dealing in symmetrically whack rhetoric and symmetrically deluded presumptions, threatening and dividing a sober and reasonable majority of the citizenry, paralyzing the political arena. No mystery is pretended. That was an accusation - and a fact. And that needlessly obscure (or deliberately deceptive, in its inaccurate "receiving" and "framework") sentence is supposed to conflict with my posting? Because it doesn't, see. And that fact that it's supposed to appear as if it does is a symptom, an indication, a field mark, of what you are doing here. I've been clear and explicit about what I consider politically threatening in you guys's shitheaded rhetoric and slipshod reasoning, and absolutely none of it has ever had anything to do with "holding a firearms advocate to his words". Furthermore, you know that - you have to know that, if you step back from your posturing bs and read what's been posted here. So what are you trying to do? You cannot hope to persuade in this manner. You intensify mistrust with this utterly corrupt manner of assault in place of argumentation. What do you hope to achieve? Because this is no way to get reasonable gun control. Too many reasonable people are going to refuse to grant political power to people who talk and behave as you have here. They refused in the past, and they will in the future. You are discarding reason. And when you do that what you win, if you win, is not what reason would recommend.
ahhh so I am correct! The fear of government. The hidden anarchist. "the right to bear arms, empowers the people, dis empowers government" Trading in fears The less regulation the more power to the people... sort of thingo... so of course taking on the 2nd in any form will lead to failure. re: OP Make the NRA legally responsible for it's members behavior and avoid tackling the 2nd. The lack of regulation comes with a cost. It is really a question of who pays beyond the victims. 'tis called responsibility!
Some will claim that it is the lack of regulation that is responsible for the problem but really it is about making gun owners themselves responsible. As with all regulation, responsibility is not actually gained by the regulation but by the individual taking responsibility and treating the regulation as a punitive, deterrent guide towards achieving that personal responsibility. For example: A Gun shop owner must be held responsible for who he sells his firearms to. He could be accused of facilitating a gun crime by selling his weapon. So what does the gun shop owner need to mitigate the risk of being deemed an accomplice and avoiding litigation? How is he to know whether the customer is a "responsible" person? Registered NRA membership might help...yes?
You are incorrect. It is fear of arbitrary and capricious and oppressively authoritarian government. Bad government, not government.
oh ...ok... I see you are taking a more moderate position. Seems to me it is the fear of any government good or bad (collective majority) overwhelming an individuals gun rights that seems to drive this issue.
It appears to me that this is a demonstration of the age old conundrum or vexation between individual responsibility and collective responsibility. The greatest weakness (IMO) of any democratic social system is demonstrated thus. Collective populist governance (responsibility) vs individual self government (responsibility). Power to the collective vs power to the individual. I believe Plato and Socrates were at odds on this topic as well, if I am not mistaken...
Imagine an extreme situation: Give every person of adult age a pocket sized tactical nuke that they must carry around with them during the course of every day life...no regulation on firing. Imagine 5 or so billion people world wide all carrying a tactical nuke in their back pocket. What do you think would happen? Would they learn responsibility the hard way or the easy way?
And I am continuing to point out that this is a consequence of "any government" being represented by a faction of gun control advocates that a majority of Americans have reason to mistrust.
so.. we agree and certainly, I believe, you have made your point (to me at least)...so what is the solution? Any government will indeed have it's gun control advocate factions...
And the CDC would still not have any funding to study gun violence. I think most would agree that it was fairly explicit and the lobbying by the NRA to ensure its passage (repeatedly) made it obvious enough, particularly when one looks at what the rider was in response to and what the NRA was responding to. As for having little effect on research at the CDC: On March 21, 2018, Congressional negotiators reached a deal on an Omnibus continuing resolution. The 1.3 trillion dollar spending agreement also includes language that codified Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar interpretation of the Dickey Rider in testimony on February 18, 2018, before the US House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee.[14] While the amendment itself remains, the language in a report accompanying the Omnibus spending bill clarifies that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can, in fact, conduct research into gun violence.[15] They were prevented from doing it in the past, due to Congress after being lobbied by the NRA. Now however, with a population clearly fed up and angry.. Well.. It's amazing what fear of an angry populace, disgust of a young demographic who will be old enough to vote in the next election, can do to politicians who have steadfastly demanded that the CDC not be allocated any funds to study gun violence for what? Two decades now? Can you please elaborate where I have threatened Sculptor or anyone else or anything else for that matter in regards to guns? This is the second time you have done this and you have failed to elaborate after the first one, despite a request that you do so. Are these the same people who keep seeing threats when no threats have been made? You know, just for the sake of clarity and all that.
Context: Sorry to butt in, but perhaps iceaura can't understand why you feel he has claimed you threatened anyone (edited), when he is talking about the threat to the constitution. Perhaps iceaura doesn't understand the distorting nature of sublime or inherent paranoia regards interpretations and meanings and how it applies to all parties involved and not just one side? ie.. keep threatening, keep losing - context = the 2nd amendment. ahhg.. perhaps I should just butt out.... Note: notice the edit... paranoid mistake I made
Perhaps just to clarify: claim: "Any threat to the 2nd amendment will fail" because it inspires enormous fear (paranoia) of potentially oppressive governance. Strategically, therefore, threatening the constitution is doomed to failure. Which is why I am suggesting another strategy and one that the NRA and gun owners may actually embrace. Self regulation via a legally responsible NRA or similar organization yet to be established. You've got the Rule of law, so why not get it to work in this case?
there is nothing moderate about ices position on guns. he is a extremist of the highest order and a completely dishonest and delusional one at that.
One thing to keep in mind. Something that is foreign and unsettling to Aussie's is that USA born citizens are indoctrinated into vowing to protect the constitution effectively from early childhood. (Indoctrinated patriotism) Any threat to the constitution will immediately inspire revolt. The NRA are stereotypical of an organzation that has at the heart of it's ethos the protection of the constitution. Hence any unconstitutional threat on the constitution will draw immediate revolt, potentially armed. Am I mistaken? (Mobile)
oh you definitely did. i really didn't figure it out until i saw him post over many threads over time. one key thing to remember is he accepts whole hardedly the interpertation of the second amendment that the extremists behind the NRA's revolt of Cincinatti pushed that the second amenmendent prevents most if not all gun control. ie. with him claiming and attacking people for mentioning the second amendment as an obsticle to gun control he himself as argued such a point. he isn't interested here in factual conversation. the pro gun control advocate in his mind is inherently a pawn of trying to turn anyone into a drone. i suggest to go back and look at his posting history on this topic, its rather enlightening. this is a person who thinks its okay for pro gun people to threaten others but that gun control people are to mean and threatening to the pro gun people and need to lay off them and concede on all points so they can feel safe. in his mind the control crowd should never be given the benefit of the doubt and the pro gun crowd always given the benefit of the doubt. that NRA agitprop he talks about is shit he says. to a certain degree. ie most american don't really give a damn about the constitution as an artifact. most of us cherish it as a cornerstone of law but do view it as mutable in word and in interpertation. the ones that view more religiously tend to be our nuts and cranks.
With a Democratic Congress, the people at the CDC who allocate research funding would be free to allocate it to gun violence without fear of vindictive repercussions. They would not have to wait for the Dickey Amendment to be repealed. It was explicit - and explicitly innocuous. You can read it for yourself, if you don't believe me. It barely mentions research at all. And that is beside the point, right? An excellent example of stealth legislation - as you note, its purpose was obvious and made perfectly clear, and its threatening nature known to all. You have no problem seeing these kinds of threats, when people you don't like are making them. I have quoted you. Several times. I have pointed directly to the exact sentences involved, several times. I have also used other events, posts, etc, as examples of that observation which includes your posting. I have done this in response to your previous requests for elaboration, already. And it is a basic aspect of probably my most frequently repeated and elaborated point regarding the politics of gun control in the US - the "bothsides" jam. So I will probably have occasion to do it again in the future, and you can read yet more postings of that nature yet again at that time. Meanwhile, review the long, long record of threads and posts on your own tic. I'm not your errand boy. Yep. And they keep surprising you - you go flailing around trying to explain why a population of citizens that almost universally favors a long list of gun control measures (more than 4 of 5 NRA members favor universal background checks, for example) keeps voting against them. This baffles you. You wave your hands and talk about the NRA. You blow off my observations - Tiassa was kind enough to quote one of the many, in #62 above - about the politicians and rhetoric that these citizens so frequently and intransigently and (apparently) inexplicably vote against.
