Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2012 23:33:41 GMT 10
“Live by the gun, die by the gun!” should be the American motto.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2012 8:01:36 GMT 10
SO while will this time be different? Probably because the victims were so young. Strange how that fact becomes a motivator, Eh Stockton ?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stockton on Dec 30, 2012 21:27:55 GMT 10
re#55
1 The polies did nothing after 2 assasination attempts (one successful) against their own, so why think they will this time? 2 These kids' parents don't vote for more than 2 senators & a few reps . That doesn't hold much value for the other 600plus polies when under pressure in their home states.
Sorry - I think there is too much wishful thinking here in Australia.
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Dec 30, 2012 22:13:01 GMT 10
There will be only one winner here ... colt AR15, lock and load America ;D
|
|
|
Post by bender on Dec 30, 2012 22:41:17 GMT 10
What do you see happening Phil? Do you think the bloods , crips , MS-13 give a rat's rear about gun control? What do you think is possible? 'Yes we can' did nothing while 464 kids in his hometown of Chicago died from gun homicides. He did nothing whilst Pakistani kids died from his drone policies. He'll concentrate on the fights he can win ( like any pollie ) and lip service the rest. Skippy you really seem enamoured with this whole protecting yourself from gangs with an AR15. I think it's been pointed out to you enough times that your claims are downright ridiculous for the message to have finally sunk in to anyone with a plus 60 IQ and although I wouldn't give you credit for being +90 (the legal boundary of intellectual retardation) I'd certainly give you +60 (the limit at which one could operate a simple device like a keyboard). So what's the problem, is it fear that if you accept one of your wacky beliefs is wrong the whole wall will come tumbling down? I'd like to reassure you but to be frank, yeah, the whole wall probably needs to come down. Anyway, to explain exactly why you are wrong, if a ban is brought in on the sale of assault weapons then there will be no new ones coming on to the market and that means that the number of illegal guns will decrease, thereby having a positive impact on the situation. Your mythical crip who's looking for a gat so he can go into suburbia and terrorise the white (non AR-15 owning) middle class homeowners has got the gun from a legal source. He may have used someone else to buy the gun in a straw purchase, he may have made a fraudulent or false declaration or used a false ID, but he did get it from a legal supplier. Remove certain types of weapons from legal sale and Lebron won't be able to buy them. There will always be illegal gun dealers and weapons trafficking in automatic weapons, but a great advantage that the US has is the fact that because these guns have been legal, there is not an established black market that's accessible to a wide range of criminals. So even if your gangster is still out there, he won't be able to buy an AR-15. Do you understand now?
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Dec 30, 2012 22:43:59 GMT 10
The answer obviously is magazine capacity ... you need to have a bigger magazine capacity than the other guy ;D
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Dec 30, 2012 22:45:50 GMT 10
I'm glad they brought laws in here whereby only bikie gangs could own assault rifles. ;D
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 31, 2012 7:09:41 GMT 10
I doubt whether skippy would ever understand, bender.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2012 17:27:58 GMT 10
I'm glad they brought laws in here whereby only bikie gangs could own assault rifles. ;D Such is the 'wisdom' of our enlightened ones ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2013 19:30:08 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 4, 2013 19:32:13 GMT 10
More cartoons? How about an intelligent, sophisticated argument?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 5, 2013 6:10:27 GMT 10
A picture speaks a thousand words. That's an intelligent sophisticated cartoon. Don't you get it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2013 9:13:02 GMT 10
The right to bear arms in the US constitution was a political RW creation, reap what you sow.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stockton on Jan 5, 2013 12:32:22 GMT 10
re#67 "The right to bear arms in the US constitution was a political RW creation, reap what you sow."
An interesting opinion given
1 the Demoncratic Party in the USA was formed out of Demoncratic- Republican Party or alliance of which Thomas Jefferson was a leader back in 1830 circa. 2 the Republican Party (GOP) was formed in1854 to oppose the extension of slavery. 3 the Bill of Rights (as distinct from the Constitution of the United States which was signed on first Wednesday in March 1789) -well at least the first set of 10, were developed & adopted by the then 13 states on or before 15th Dec 1791.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 17, 2013 9:21:56 GMT 10
re#67 "The right to bear arms in the US constitution was a political RW creation, reap what you sow." I have to agree with Stockton here. The 2nd amendment to the US constitution was not a "political RW creation" as Spindrift claims. It was enacted in 1791 at a time when the US was still a wild and woolly place. The War of Independence against the British was of recent memory, there was yet another war to be fought against the British in the near future, and the frontier was not far away and was a dangerous place. Besides, given that the US Constitution was aimed at producing an English-speaking polity in which the liberties that in England were restricted to "gentlemen" were extended to all (except blacks!), then given that the right to bear arms in England was reserved for the gentry, the 2nd amendment in the US extended it to all, providing they were white. Rather than a "political RW creation", the second amendment was a measure that was probably a good idea at the time. The US was a young republic that was vulnerable. If it wasn't threatened by the British there was the threat on the frontier by native americans. And if not them there were also the Spanish in Florida and the south west, as well as the French in Louisiana and Canada. To have an armed citizenry that was skilled in the use of firearms meant a rapid mobilisation in time of war - as the War of 1812 was to show. The problem, as always, is the law of unintended consequences. Who could have foreseen, back in 1791, the sorts of weapons that would become available 200 years later. If those who drafted the 2nd amendment and enacted it in 1791 could have predicted Columbine and Newport, who knows how that would have influenced their thinking? In Britain they have a law that's over 300 years old that prevents any member of the royal family from marrying a Catholic. It was a good idea at the time because the Holy See back then was a threat a bit like Al-Qaeda today. The Brits had had 200 years of religious strife and Catholic extremism had been more of a threat to the viability of England than Islamic extremism is today. It made sense to lock Catholicism out of the highest levels of government. And yet today that's seen as a curious and bizarre hangover from an earlier time. To make the Sovereign the Head of the Church of England was brilliant politics 300 years ago, and wise policy. And yet back in the 1930s with the Abdication Crisis it nearly caused the British Monarchy to collapse. As with the 2nd amendment in the US, a sensible measure and wise policy in the context of the time becomes either a barrier to progress, in the case of Britain, or a menace to public safety in the case of the US. But definitely not a "RW political creation". To say that is to falsify the historical record. You're right, Stockton. I didn't realise you were an American History buff! My interests have mostly been European (and that includes British) history as well as Australian history. But I find I'm developing an interest in US history - particularly pre-civil war history.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2013 20:24:34 GMT 10
From the Los Angeles Times....In right-wing delusions, Obama's gun control plan is monarchyBy DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM - Wednesday, January 17, 2013EVEN BEFORE President Obama announced his proposed gun control measures, right-wing paranoids and Republican members of Congress were raving about impeachment, incipient monarchy and civil war.
Obama’s proposal is expected to include a call for banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as strengthening the background check system for gun buyers. While Congress would have to approve those major steps, he may also lay out 19 actions he can take by executive order, such as mandating that federal agencies gather data on gun safety.
In the wake of the schoolroom massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, and many other brutal gun-related tragedies in recent months, ideas for dealing with school safety and mental illness are also said to be on Obama’s list. But most of the attention will be directed at his gun control plan, and much of it will be hotheaded and shrill.
The usual gun rights lunatics are preemptively saying it may be necessary to take up arms to stop the government from confiscating everyone’s guns. Rabid rocker Ted Nugent has declared Obama’s proposals “psychotic” and said putting Vice President Joe Biden and Attorney General Eric Holder in charge of the task force to come up with gun legislation is comparable to “hiring Jeffrey Dahmer to tell us how to take care of our children.”
Although assault weapons have been banned in the past without a loss of liberty, and no regulation Obama is considering comes close to negating the right to keep and bear arms, one congressman from Texas said he would push impeachment of the president for trying to nullify the 2nd Amendment.
Tea party hero Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky equated Obama’s proposed administrative actions with the monarchy of King George III and pledged to fight the president “tooth and nail” as if 2013 were 1776.
Clearly, the debate about guns is not going to be a reasoned discussion about how to better regulate the hundreds of millions of guns in America and keep them out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. At least on the right, it will be an exercise in paranoia and fear-mongering.
Meanwhile, in the sane state of New York, Republican and Democratic legislators have joined together to pass new gun restrictions that will ban high-capacity magazines, strictly limit ownership of assault weapons and ban their sale online. They did it quickly in a bipartisan fashion and Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law on Tuesday. So far, the Empire State shows no sign of turning into a Stalinist nightmare. Other than the significant exceptions of Illinois and Michigan, gun deaths are generally lower in states, such as California, that have strict guns laws. New York was on that list even before this newest law was passed.
Of the annual 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S., only 200 are homicides resulting from acts of self-defense, according to the FBI. Still, no one is talking about stripping away the right of anyone to own a gun to scare off a prowler or hold off a rapist (even though most people shot by guns in homes are relatives and friends). The only types of gun anyone is talking about restricting are the assault rifles that former Generals Colin Powell and Stanley McChrystal say should only be in the hands of soldiers — the kind of weapon used by a mentally unstable young man to murder first-graders in Newtown.
But folks on the right disagree with the generals. Apparently, that is the kind of weapon they think they may desperately need in the event of civil war against the would-be monarch in the White House.www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-obamas-gun-control-20130115,0,6816836.story
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Jan 17, 2013 20:40:05 GMT 10
Ha ha reminds of the paranoid dickheads that think the global warming boogey man is coming after them. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2013 21:49:22 GMT 10
Why won’t you ever change?By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist | 6:22PM - Tuesday, January 13, 2013CONSERVATIVES? Resent change. Despise and hiss and begrudge. This is the basic definition, no? The common understanding, attitude, posture?
Sad but true: Most on the retro-conformist side of the human experiment stake their lives, careers, ideologies, religions and very genitals on the fact that Americans — nay all humans — prefer stasis, sameness, moral viscosity, the counterfeit stability of the establishment over anything resembling wild and unknowable and new.
Are they right? Sadly, they’re sort of right. Conservatives are repulsively well trained to play on a common American fear, so widespread, so easily transmitted it’s less like an idea and more like a virus: Change freaks us out. Change is the demon that makes us panic and clench and worry. Thus, the only change favored by conservatives is a change back to an old way that never really worked and no one really liked in the first place, but hey, at least we know.You know you need to.It is a tragic condition, this fear, made all the uglier because, while millions say they do not love change, change certainly loves us. It is, famously, the only constant. The universe is in continuous flux. The planet is shifting and evolving by the second, a breathing, pulsing, living organism moving at the speed of consciousness; the human body is remaking itself by the breath and the blink, your very skin sloughing off a billion cells in the time it took you to read this paragraph. Change is not what we do; it is who we are.
Is this why we grip and cling? Because, deep down, we know it’s a quick, gorgeous, terrifying ride into the Void and it’s all we can do to pretend there’s a stable framework, a shared understanding of how it’s supposed to work?
Is this why so many attach so desperately to bogus, spiritually hollow ideologies that choke the very life out of life? Corporations, Wall Street, nationalism, sports fanaticism, traditional marriage, Bibles, hoary religions that promise salvation if we just give our thrumming souls over to angry old men who never have sex and know nothing of the feral and orgiastic divine?
It all comes to mind as I’m reading about how the NRA is right now sneering like furious, changeless trolls at the Obama administration, given how the latter is daring to propose stricter background checks on gun sales and a complete ban on all assault weapons.
Is it not amazing? Gun fanatics are furious that gun fanatics are being blamed for America’s gun fanatics problem. So cute.
The NRA, like any conservative group, reviles change. The NRA exists solely to enflame fear of the unknown, fear of Other, championing only ignorance and childish anxiety about the world. Their membership depends entirely on a lousy educational system and a visceral hatred of nuance. After all, the less intelligent and informed you are, the more dangerous the world appears, and the more you will desire a deadly weapon to compensate for what you lack in compassion and perspective. What, you calling me stupid? You calling me ignorant and racist and violent? Say it to my Glock.
The NRA, sadly, is far from alone. Did you notice the unmitigated shock and disgust the entire Republican party faced – and is still facing, every day — when it realized the American electorate had finally tipped away from its once-stable, white-male base? The timbre of the nation has permanently shifted, and the GOP is gnawing off its own fingers in panic.
Change never stops, change is delirious and godly and right, change yelps happily at our feet and begs for companionship and love. It’s when we ignore it that things turn ugly, that change becomes less of a shared wonder, and more of an annihilating force. This is the fantastic, terrifying thing about change: It will happen, whether we roll with it or not.Resent change? Scared of everything? Begrudge the world? You need one of these!The battle over global warming is, in sum, a battle over radical change. Conservatives, oil execs, far too many consumers believe there is only one solution to our gluttonous energy needs: we must drill for more oil, frack, puncture, rape the land evermore violently until there’s nothing left. This is the only way.
Why? Because altering our rabid consumerism, our mad consumption is impossible. Because George W. Bush was right: we’re addicted to oil. And what do you do with an uncontrollable addiction that make bloated old men hundreds of billions of dollars in profit? Why, you feed it until the planet recoils so violently that everything dies.
Is it at all true? Are we incapable of large-scale change and wild evolution? Of course not. We do it all the time. After all, it’s the nature of everything. The conservative mindset, perhaps more than any other in America save religious fundamentalism, is at odds with the nature of spirit, love, existence itself.
Does that make you feel righteous and good? Does that do a liberal, change-loving heart proud? Don’t be so sure. Don’t get too cocky. Odds are, you’re not all that different. Neither am I. No one is.
Do you know the single-most destructive, potentially fatal belief you can ever have in a love relationship? The worst thing you can ever do to your partner? No, not take her to Orlando. Not get matching “Twilight” tattoos. Not buy him a slouchy hoodie and a diamond pinky ring.
It’s to presume you know. To presume you have the other person all figured out; their likes, dislikes, responses, emotions, desires and limitations – you got them pegged, all wrapped up and contained in this nice little box.
This way misery lies. This way numbness and resentment and inertia. Thinking you know someone’s entire character is like placing them in an energetic cage; it shuts down all mystery, magic, spontaneous change and surprise. Tell someone exactly who they are, and watch love fail.
“Change or die”, says the cute innovator’s aphorism. Well, sort of. Steve Jobs, for one, famously loathed focus groups. Remember that? He said if you ask a bunch of numbed-out consumers sitting around a conference table what kind of new cell phone they want, they’ll say, “Give me the same thing I had before, but make it smaller, faster, cheaper.”
Most people, tragically, have no conception of the radical new, of true spiritual transformation, of seeing through our endless social constructs to the other side. Change as wild possibility has been drilled out of us by capitalism, gun lobbies, reality TV, Wal-Mart, politicians who have a vested interest in promoting stasis and preventing evolution, even going so far as to deny the latter exists at all.
If focus groups led the world, we’d have no iPhone. When you let numb groupthink rule technology, you get Microsoft. If you let conservativism rule, you get Mitt Romney, the Catholic Church, abstinence education, homophobia, sexism, monster trucks, the Iraq war, corporate groupthink, a sad, low-level hatred of anything that is not exactly like you. It’s not that stability or consistency are wrong. They can be quite wonderful. It’s that they’re just as much an illusion as anything else.
“Don’t ever change,” we write, naively, in our friends’ high school yearbooks. Oh my God. Are you insane? I can think of nothing I’d rather do.• • Mark Morford on Twitter and Facebook.blog.sfgate.com/morford/2013/01/15/why-wont-you-ever-change
|
|