U.S. Politics - Page 568 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5671  
Old 12-17-12, 05:04
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blutto View Post
http://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-t...nipers-2012-12

....its an absolutely terrible gun for hunting....not really that good for close and personal...but really good for slaughter....so how on earth does a teacher get something like this, and most importantly, why?....
What do you mean how? You can buy AR-15 variants in any good gun store.

There are more reasons for owning guns that hunting. It keeps the country safe. When the aliens invade, do you think they will want to mess with 'merica? No way, Jose. They will look on the opposite side of the world and see how easy it will be to eradicate those defenseless pussies in Australia.

Similarly, when the zombie apocalypse comes, your average red blooded American will look out the window and think to himself, "I knew something like this was gonna happen." Then he will grab his AR-15 from under the bed and yell at junior to get the box of extra ammo from the closet. Meanwhile the limeys across the ocean will be trying to fend off the zombies with cricket bats.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken

Last edited by BroDeal; 12-17-12 at 06:09.
Reply With Quote
  #5672  
Old 12-17-12, 05:59
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,504
Default

We have natural defence systems...
Reply With Quote
  #5673  
Old 12-17-12, 06:22
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
- Colorado theater shooter, mentally ill (schizophrenic)
- Virginia Tech shooter, mentally ill (selective-mutism, autism?)
- Connecticut shooter, Asperger's, personalty disorder
- Charles Whitman (Texas Tower shooter), brain tumor discovered during autopsy
- Columbine, both kids were taking Luvox, SSRI used for dperession and OCD

Maybe society should put more resources into mental healthcare rather than trying to restrict everyone's rights because of a few crazies.
My girlfriend's 75 year-old father, with his usual candor that comes with an age in which one isn't any longer disposed to some falsehood, came up with another good one last night. In contemplating this very issue as he sees it, Italy's crazies without access to guns just "jump off a bridge." In other words, they only do harm to themselves. "There they go out and shoot people." Precisely because there are a few crazies (actually many more than a few), BroDeal, general restrictions must be in place. Ultimate liberty is not freedom, because my liberty ends where another's begins. What freedom to grow up and live their lives as best they saw fit did those 28 children have before one who had all to facile access to firearms, because the State finds it unconstitutional to restrict everyone's liberty to own them? And which freedom should be most safegaurded, over the inevitable restriction of the other? Here we confront diametrically opposed viewpoints, as to what constitutes the civilizing role of the State before its citizenry: progressive democracy from the Far West.

The specious arguments you put forth, however, are also in their appalling contempt for the seriousness of the problem at hand, another potent affirmation of the need to regulate the arms market much more severely: simply to make sure that guns are kept out of reach of such people’s hands. Obviously under the current permissive regime this isn’t being done though. To the contrary, the confluence of an institutionalized mass folly and America’s apparent vocation for idividual psychosis, has exploded into a recurrent serious of fatal catastrophes. To think otherwise is simply living in denial.

Yet in approaching this historical problem the object of your scorn, in view of its warped justification (essentially the same hegemonic lie put forth by the gun fanatics that “guns don’t kill, the people that use them do”), is a shameful perversion of problematizing the issue. Another of your strange points is to denote a statistical comparison between two seemingly related phenomenon: automobile and gun deaths, as a means to indicate the relative innocuousness of the later in opposition to the mortal frequency of the former. Cloaking an assault on the anti-arms position triggered by the latest fatalities, you attempted to establish a justification for your cause beneath this curious analysis. We are though tempted to ask: is it legitimate to read the competing politics in light of such a statistical key? The answer is simply no, it is not; because automobiles are not made specifically as instruments of death. Whereas the debatable point that gun related deaths do not meet the necessary statistical quotas to make them blame worthy in your opinion, however, doesn't override the lethality caused by their popular use (which of course should have been long since regulated). One wonders which quota would have to be met, in order to satisfy your rather grotesque sense of relevance to this issue. Certainly the parents of the 28 children who won't be going home ever again haven't any doubt. The only applicable correspondence here can be framed within a rhetorical question: why is America incapable of regulating firearms, by the same severity with which it is able to regulate cars?

It's thus diabolically ironic (and hypocritical) that America's obsession with safety and prevention, isn't accompanied by severe restrictions on the sale of firearms. As per the issue of restricted rights? Your emphasis is exclusively placed upon a perceived hallowed "right" written down in some antiquated document called the US Constitution, which allows citizens to arm themselves as if commandos going into combat. No emphasis, however, is given to the primal right of others not to be gunned down like livestock in the slaughterhouse. How is this conflict to be reconciled? More importantly in the later case, how is this to be prevented? Continued unrestricted access to guns, rather than restricting "everyone's rights" is the answer? Invest more in mental healthcar? Good luck.

Lastly in consideration of the recent victims’ families, have you no shame in arguing these points?

Last edited by rhubroma; 12-17-12 at 18:21.
Reply With Quote
  #5674  
Old 12-17-12, 13:55
BillytheKid's Avatar
BillytheKid BillytheKid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Left of the Duke City
Posts: 2,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
My girlfriend's 75 year-old father, with his usual candor that comes with an age in which one isn't any longer disposed to some falsehood, came up with another good one last night. In contemplating this very issue as he sees it, Italy's crazies without access to guns just "jump off a bridge. In other words, they only do harm to themselves. "There they go out and shoot people." Precisely because there are a few crazies (actually many more than a few), BroDeal, general restrictions must be in place. Ultimate liberty is not freedom, because my liberty ends where another's begins. What freedom to grow up and live their lives as best they saw fit did those 28 children have before one who had all to facile access to firearms, because the State finds it unconstitutional to restrict everyone's liberty to own them? And which freedom should be most safegaurded, over the inevitable restriction of the other? Here we confront diametrically opposed viewpoints, as to what constitutes the civilizing role of the State before its citizenry: progressive democracy from the Far West.

The specious arguments you put forth, however, are also in their appalling contempt for the seriousness of the problem at hand, another potent affirmation of the need to regulate the arms market much more severely: simply to make sure that guns are kept out of reach of such people’s hands. Obviously under the current permissive regime this isn’t being done though. To the contrary, the confluence of an institutionalized mass folly and America’s apparent vocation for idividual psychosis, has exploded into a recurrent serious of fatal catastrophes. To think otherwise is simply living in denial.

Yet in approaching this historical problem the object of your scorn, in view of its warped justification (essentially the same hegemonic lie put forth by the gun fanatics that “guns don’t kill, the people that use them do”), is a shameful perversion of problematizing the issue. Another of your strange points is to denote a statistical comparison between two seemingly related phenomenon: automobile and gun deaths, as a means to indicate the relative innocuousness of the later in opposition to the mortal frequency of the former. Cloaking an assault on the anti-arms position triggered by the latest fatalities, you attempted to establish a justification for your cause beneath this curious analysis. We are though tempted to ask: is it legitimate to read the competing politics in light of such a statistical key? The answer is simply no, it is not; because automobiles are not made specifically as instruments of death. Whereas the debatable point that gun related deaths do not meet the necessary statistical quotas to make them blame worthy in your opinion, however, doesn't override the lethality caused by their popular use (which of course should have been long since regulated). One wonders which quota would have to be met, in order to satisfy your rather grotesque sense of relevance to this issue. Certainly the parents of the 28 children who won't be going home ever again haven't any doubt. The only applicable correspondence here can be framed within a rhetorical question: why is America incapable of regulating firearms, by the same severity with which it is able to regulate cars?

It's thus diabolically ironic (and hypocritical) that America's obsession with safety, isn't accompanied by severe restrictions on the sale of firearms. As per the issue of restricted rights? Your emphasis is exclusively placed upon a perceived hallowed "right" written down in some antiquated document called the US Constitution, which allows citizens to arm themselves as if commandos going into combat. No emphasis, however, is given to the primal right of others not to be gunned down like livestock in the slaughterhouse. How is this conflict to be reconciled? More importantly in the later case, how is this to be prevented? Continued unrestricted access to guns, rather than restricting "everyone's rights" is the answer? Invest more in mental healthcar? Good luck.

Lastly in consideration of the recent victims’ families, have you no shame in arguing these points?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/...ack/index.html
China is gun free as well, but this disproves your premise that the distraught and angry only harm themselves. Guns, semis, do make these evil actions much more lethal. There is no argument there. Guns, however, are only part of the equation here. When in high school back in the day, I ws assigned to write a essay on violence on T.V. and elsewhere in entertainment. The focus on this issue was there and not with guns. Yet, the issue today has become a singular "gun" only issue. The violence of that era seems tame compare to what's out there now, especially in vid gaming. Mental health issues run the gambit from anxiety issues to full sociopaths, but society often lumps them all together "the crazies." SSRI's that are also commonly prescribe, can have adverse reactions in many patients including creating both agitation and a state of lack of conscience in some.

The drug companies have managed to blame pre-existing conditions in the patients to avoid any liabilty when this occurs. As with gun sells, violent gaming and entertainment and possible adverse reaction to meds, money talks.

My point is that I don't believe it's one thing, but many.
__________________
I tell ya, it's not the water.

Last edited by BillytheKid; 12-17-12 at 15:50.
Reply With Quote
  #5675  
Old 12-17-12, 15:09
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
Those rights are right there right of the two in the Bill of Rights.
I thought you were an intelligent man, but I can no longer take you seriously after this.
__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #5676  
Old 12-17-12, 16:10
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,444
Default



__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #5677  
Old 12-17-12, 17:14
hrotha's Avatar
hrotha hrotha is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
The point is that it is freaking suicide. It has nothing to do with guns other than that is the method they chose to check out with. It could have just as easily been jumping off a bridge, cutting wrists, pills and alcohol, or carbon monoxide poisoning. If it's not one method, it will be another.

I don't really care if drug dealers kill each other.

Inflating stats for gun violence by including suicides is just lame as well as disingenuous..
There are few suicide methods that are easier and quicker than shooting yourself. Same with homicide.

Simply making it harder to get a gun would help reduce those numbers by weeding out the vast majority of the non-mafioso type that right now has easy access to guns.
Reply With Quote
  #5678  
Old 12-17-12, 17:40
ValleyFlowers's Avatar
ValleyFlowers ValleyFlowers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Santa Ynez valley
Posts: 311
Default

I am rethinking my views on gun rights
Reply With Quote
  #5679  
Old 12-17-12, 17:54
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillytheKid View Post
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/...ack/index.html
China is gun free as well, but this disproves your premise that the distraught and angry only harm themselves. Guns, semis, do make these evil actions much more lethal. There is no argument there. Guns, however, are only part of the equation here. When in high school back in the day, I ws assigned to write a essay on violence on T.V. and elsewhere in entertainment. The focus on this issue was there and not with guns. Yet, the issue today has become a singular "gun" only issue. The violence of that era seems tame compare to what's out there now, especially in vid gaming. Mental health issues run the gambit from anxiety issues to full sociopaths, but society often lumps them all together "the crazies." SSRI's that are also commonly prescribe, can have adverse reactions in many patients including creating both agitation and a state of lack of conscience in some.

The drug companies have managed to blame pre-existing conditions in the patients to avoid any liabilty when this occurs. As with gun sells, violent gaming and entertainment and possible adverse reaction to meds, money talks.

My point is that I don't believe it's one thing, but many.
I never said that guns are the only issue, but a starting point, without which nothing further can be done. As per the multi-faceted nature of the problem, we can therefore agree on that.

Isolated incidences of non-gun related violence in China, or instances of mass murder gun violence in more "civil" States like Norway with Brevik, are not compelling arguments (while they disprove nothing - as if the latest mass murder in America needed proofs); because they aren't related to the problem under discussion: namely, the unacceptably high rate of gun violence in America and the heinous recrudescence of mass murders al là Columbine.

This seems to me a more lucid analysis...

http://www.adn.com/2012/12/15/272537...-get-wise.html

Last edited by rhubroma; 12-17-12 at 17:57.
Reply With Quote
  #5680  
Old 12-17-12, 18:01
The Hitch's Avatar
The Hitch The Hitch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London.
Posts: 23,350
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amsterhammer View Post
Do you not find your defense of gun ownership with that goddamn word 'rights' to be more than just a little at odds with the rest of your political outlook (as expressed here)?
No no no.

Its good to find people who.still.think out issues for themselves rather than just side on 100% of issues with whatever side they.feel they belong too.

Everyone being told.they are traitors if they stray from the party line is a major reason why America is so divided right now and why loud mouth demagogues who only know how to troll the other side, prosper.

Chapeau bro deal and anyone else who still thinks about where they stand on issues rather than where their allies stand.
__________________
The Hitch: 3rd place week 43 2014 cq game. Winner 2013 Vuelta cq game. Winner, Velorooms prediction game 2012, 2013 (still undefeated). Currently 2nd all time cq rankings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pre 2009 wiggins
If there's a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is working with certain doctors, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France - as simple as that.
journalist with integrity.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:19.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.