U.S. Politics - Page 654 - 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
  #6531  
Old 01-26-13, 09:22
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Uh, the left, left...

The left that's not the right.

My posts stupider than average? Funny only you responded to rape control, India style.

Dang.
Sarcasm lost on you apparently.

Only you replied with the suggestion of "rape control."

Would that work like a Jetsons problem?


Dang.

Last edited by aphronesis; 01-26-13 at 09:25.
Reply With Quote
  #6532  
Old 01-26-13, 13:47
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,188
Default

Well worth a read. Hopefully your hair won't catch fire...

Quote:
The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.

Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition.

But President Obama, it seems, does.

He has just passed a bill that extends to him and his family protection, around the clock and for life, by the Secret Service. He, evidently, feels that he is best qualified to determine his needs, and, of course, he is. As I am best qualified to determine mine.

For it is, again, only the Marxists who assert that the government, which is to say the busy, corrupted, and hypocritical fools most elected officials are (have you ever had lunch with one?) should regulate gun ownership based on its assessment of needs.

Q. Who “needs” an assault rifle?

A. No one outside the military and the police. I concur.

An assault weapon is that which used to be called a “submachine gun.” That is, a handheld long gun that will fire continuously as long as the trigger is held down.

These have been illegal in private hands (barring those collectors who have passed the stringent scrutiny of the Federal Government) since 1934. Outside these few legal possessors, there are none in private hands. They may be found in the hands of criminals. But criminals, let us reflect, by definition, are those who will not abide by the laws. What purpose will passing more laws serve?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...vid-mamet.html
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6533  
Old 01-26-13, 16:38
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Well worth a read. Hopefully your hair won't catch fire...



http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...vid-mamet.html
The association of Marxists with gun control is bracing. Good to know though that you're not a lunatic in the wilderness, but rather have company.
Reply With Quote
  #6534  
Old 01-26-13, 23:40
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aphronesis View Post
The association of Marxists with gun control is bracing. Good to know though that you're not a lunatic in the wilderness, but rather have company.

Awww, was the Marx reference what bothered you? I would have thought it was this;


Quote:
The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal (as above) for 78 years. Did the ban make them “more” illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.

Will increased cosmetic measures make anyone safer? They, like all efforts at disarmament, will put the citizenry more at risk. Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things.

But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws?

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.


President Obama seems to understand the Constitution as a “set of suggestions.” I cannot endorse his performance in office, but he wins my respect for taking those steps he deems necessary to ensure the safety of his family. Why would he want to prohibit me from doing the same?
I have the answer.

Mr. Mamet, you are not important enough to be concerned with your own self defense or that of your family. Only the ruling class... the Obama's and Feinsteins of the world are reserved that kind of luxury. Deal with it.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6535  
Old 01-27-13, 00:06
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Awww, was the Marx reference what bothered you? I would have thought it was this;




I have the answer.

Mr. Mamet, you are not important enough to be concerned with your own self defense or that of your family. Only the ruling class... the Obama's and Feinsteins of the world are reserved that kind of luxury. Deal with it.
No, the Marx reference (if that's what it was) didn't bother me. Although, people should probably read Marx before they start throwing his name around.

I'll go with Chris E on this one. Stupidity is what bothers me. And there's a lot of it on this issue. I'm less concerned about gun control than the sort of moronic arguments that you and BDeal are distilling from the reactionary population at large.

What gets said about guns is more worrisome to me in the long run than the presence of guns.

You get that? That ok with you?

And of course, I see how you're right about the India issue. It's not progress; women should remain as they've been for centuries and all they need to keep things in check is low national debt and high employment?

Is that right?
Reply With Quote
  #6536  
Old 01-27-13, 01:50
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
390K! Thousands of innocent citizens saved from murder every year. That, boys, is what is called hoisted on your own petard. Thanks, Velo. We could not have done it without you.

Ten year stats = 3.9 million!! Is there anything guns can't do?



Evidently, exchanging the lives of thousands of law abiding citizens for the chance that less than two dozen might be saved is a price the libs are willing to force society to pay in order to carry out their war on the people's rights. The moonbats have never been too good with unintended consequences.
Congratulations on transforming yourself from an apparently intelligent man into a tiresome, trolling caricature who only comes in here to babble gibberish.

Scotty, I honestly thought that your comments on the pic of Indian women were beneath contempt. Did you really think that was humor? Or are you suggesting that life in India would be different for women if only they all had guns?

You really have to despair about the wrong wing......
__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #6537  
Old 01-27-13, 04:46
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amsterhammer View Post
Congratulations on transforming yourself from an apparently intelligent man into a tiresome, trolling caricature who only comes in here to babble gibberish.

Scotty, I honestly thought that your comments on the pic of Indian women were beneath contempt. Did you really think that was humor? Or are you suggesting that life in India would be different for women if only they all had guns?

You really have to despair about the wrong wing......
My comments? My only comment was that knives and chili in lieu of guns would be considered progress by the left here in the States. Am I wrong? No, I am not.

I'll suggest that people everywhere should be able to defend themselves. Being gang raped and beaten to death doesn't appeal to American women any more than Indian women and yet guns are the true evil here.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6538  
Old 01-27-13, 04:49
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aphronesis View Post
No, the Marx reference (if that's what it was) didn't bother me. Although, people should probably read Marx before they start throwing his name around.

I'll go with Chris E on this one. Stupidity is what bothers me. And there's a lot of it on this issue. I'm less concerned about gun control than the sort of moronic arguments that you and BDeal are distilling from the reactionary population at large.

What gets said about guns is more worrisome to me in the long run than the presence of guns.

You get that? That ok with you?

And of course, I see how you're right about the India issue. It's not progress; women should remain as they've been for centuries and all they need to keep things in check is low national debt and high employment?

Is that right?
Go with ChrisE at your own peril.

For the record, stupidity bothers me too.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6539  
Old 01-27-13, 14:05
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Go with ChrisE at your own peril.

For the record, stupidity bothers me too.
So it generally seems. Except on these couple of issues--at least as you're engaging them here. I think you are wrong in suggesting that "the left" in the States would consider that progress in unqualified terms. Some arguing from the perspective of gender debates and identity politics probably would, but overall, I've found many of those people's views to be a bit narrow, short-sighted and not a reliable guide to larger world realities.

As a symbolic gesture, it's not the worst thing that could happen either in terms of identity (re)formation in India.

Last edited by aphronesis; 01-27-13 at 14:08.
Reply With Quote
  #6540  
Old 01-27-13, 14:59
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
My comments? My only comment was that knives and chili in lieu of guns would be considered progress by the left here in the States. Am I wrong? No, I am not.

I'll suggest that people everywhere should be able to defend themselves. Being gang raped and beaten to death doesn't appeal to American women any more than Indian women and yet guns are the true evil here.
Yep, Scott, you are pretty much wrong here, because how can we call arming people (when this was offered 250 years ago), as any indication of progress?

Europe's got it right on this one dude. Arguing that it's more sensible to have easy gun access, because that will help women prevent themselves from being raped is simply featherbrained (except within Hollywood fantasy - which, by the way, is all too often taken for reality by cretans and the intellectually underdeveloped), while Amster was also right in bringing you to task for such demented humor.

Now how about making the economy more democratic and observe how that plays a major role in diminishing criminality, rage, mental illness (if the environmentalists have any merit, which I think they do), increasing a sense of community, building bridges that connect groups, rather than furthering division, radical individualism and the insular-every man for himself mentality. Other than firearms.

Last edited by rhubroma; 01-27-13 at 15:06.
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 05:23.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.