U.S. Politics - Page 598 - 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
  #5971  
Old 12-24-12, 18:41
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,970
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
These are the guns that the second amendment was written for.
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Gods don't kill people, people with Gods kill people.
Reply With Quote
  #5972  
Old 12-24-12, 18:44
phanatic phanatic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Januss View Post
These are the guns that the second amendment was written for.
Is that what Boothe used?
Reply With Quote
  #5973  
Old 12-24-12, 18:46
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,844
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
The real problem was outlined in the blog post " I am Adam Lanzas mother."

Why don't you tell me how you would interpret the 2nd amendment? Thanks.
Sure, but that real problem is more than a failure of mental health care. It nods toward a more general failure of the State, and of the state of society. Now before you start jumping around, I don't mean that simply in some sort of Keynesian/New Deal sense, but as a failure of this country and its societies to develop any sort of traditions, values and social relations which are ultimately mutable enough to keep up with its modernization (and the flip-side of that being that the increasingly privatized condition of the post monopoly capital US has contributed massively to the erosion of any sort of any human infrastructure that would ballast and provide outs for the situation described in that blog post.)

The article I linked a couple of days ago suggested that Americans have very much created their own particular forms of insanity and they are now festering in them. Both liberals and the right are resistant to admitting this--the latter to even recognizing it.


The second there's some sort of recognized and legitimated consensus of an active and current threat against any or various segments of the citizenry than they can petition (quickly) for appropriate arms to defend against said threat. Same goes for any sort of rural usage: the legitimation of which is all mostly in place.

How about you give it a go?

Last edited by aphronesis; 12-24-12 at 18:58.
Reply With Quote
  #5974  
Old 12-24-12, 19:27
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
I think I've been pretty clear. Judge Burns is more articulate than I.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6774314.story

Thats reasonable. That's fine. But that's where it will stop, until the next mass killing then it will still be the guns fault.

I've been real clear here too. I think Barry has wasted opportunity after opportunity to be a fantastic President. Economically, he's a disaster. What I'm all for is a thriving economy. I'm all for that and nothing for asinine policies that get in the way of that. We clear?



Criminality exists with and without guns, yes? Are you saying there are no positive externalities of gun ownership?



I don't even disagree with this. Where's your vitriol directed at the failure of mental health services?



Translated: if you don't agree with my position then STFU.

So where's your outrage on the other-than-guns issues? Hmmm?
Once again a conservative analysis erroneously interprets the critical issue, which is not one of full proofing anything, but taking effective measures to diminish the likelihood of their occurrences. Within the spectrum of that, restricted gun access is but one of various necessary measures. The legal situation in enough other societies is a demonstration of its effectiveness in this regard.

Sure other forms of crime exist, but how does that have any bearing on the polemic thus forged by the latest mass slaughter? The modern barometer for any country's mental well being, is contained within the legal structure of its social hardware and the values brought into its primary and secondary schools. The conservative calls for arming the schools are, therefore, not an indication of sanity, within the confines of most civil societies. A less psychotic response, consequently, would be to call for tighter market regulations, as well as a modernization of the constitution to suit a tragic contemporary reality. How many more times does this need to be spelled-out for you?
Reply With Quote
  #5975  
Old 12-24-12, 19:42
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 aphronesis View Post
The second there's some sort of recognized and legitimated consensus of an active and current threat against any or various segments of the citizenry than they can petition (quickly) for appropriate arms to defend against said threat.
You just don't get it. The right to bear arms is not for external threats. It is for internal ones, the very ones you so blithely think would respond to petitions to give the citizens their arms back.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #5976  
Old 12-24-12, 19:44
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
Once again a conservative analysis erroneously interprets the critical issue, which is not one of full proofing anything, but taking effective measures to diminish the likelihood of their occurrences. Within the spectrum of that, restricted gun access is but one of various necessary measures. The legal situation in enough other societies is a demonstration of its effectiveness in this regard.

Sure other forms of crime exist, but how does that have any bearing on the polemic thus forged by the latest mass slaughter? The modern barometer for any country's mental well being, is contained within the legal structure of its social hardware and the values brought into its primary and secondary schools. The conservative calls for arming the schools are, therefore, not an indication of sanity, within the confines of most civil societies. A less psychotic response, consequently, would be to call for tighter market regulations, as well as a modernization of the constitution to suit a tragic contemporary reality. How many more times does this need to be spelled-out for you?
You have any idea what's going on in Chicago right now? It's Newtown every month and it ain't assault weapons doing the killing. How do you explain it?
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5977  
Old 12-24-12, 19:48
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,844
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
You just don't get it. The right to bear arms is not for external threats. It is for internal ones, the very ones you so blithely think would respond to petitions to give the citizens their arms back.
Oh, right. I asked you this a few days back, but you were too busy pontificating the salt o' the earth position to deign to respond.

What are the odds, you think, that retaining that right will do you much actual good. Really. Please do f*cking humor me and describe the scenario in which you see that playing out on the side of the citizenry? Let alone amounting to any kind of wholesale transformation of the government. You don't vote, don't propose any feasible alternatives to reforming or jettisoning the two party system, yet you cling to this? What do you care?

Shootout in the Rockies? Thick in the forest. Shades of Rambo?

Or maybe you have something more sober in mind. Please do enlighten me Z.

As for blithe, I think you have me confused with the Democratic fundraising and boosterism set--of which I am not one.

The difference between us is that I don't think it matters whether you have that right as it's now written or if repealed and made selectively available as a finite dispensation. You have a very different interpretration--one that seems mostly disconnected from--or doesn't get--several larger realities.

Last edited by aphronesis; 12-24-12 at 19:59.
Reply With Quote
  #5978  
Old 12-24-12, 19:53
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,844
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
You have any idea what's going on in Chicago right now? It's Newtown every month and it ain't assault weapons doing the killing. How do you explain it?
Again, you are aware of the socio-economic explanation for what's going on in Chicago are you not? Maybe not.

Anyway, how 'bout the better question: why isn't it being stopped by means other than guns since they're just unproblematic objects?
Reply With Quote
  #5979  
Old 12-24-12, 19:57
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
You have any idea what's going on in Chicago right now? It's Newtown every month and it ain't assault weapons doing the killing. How do you explain it?
Perhaps not, though if it has anything to do with firearms, drugs, education, well then, we are dealing with taking similar measures.
Reply With Quote
  #5980  
Old 12-24-12, 20:14
Wallace's Avatar
Wallace Wallace is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 643
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
You just don't get it. The right to bear arms is not for external threats. It is for internal ones, the very ones you so blithely think would respond to petitions to give the citizens their arms back.
When you see how often the folks who stockpile weaponry against "internal" threats snap and use those weapons against family and strangers, the dangers of this kind of mindset are abundantly clear. The problem of the fantasy world of people who genuinely think of Federal agents as "jack-booted thugs" is that too frequently it plays out in the real world with a high body count. What can I say: I like my government, but my country terrifies me.
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 13:11.


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