U.S. Politics

Page 311 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
patricknd said:
laughing at a man's mule is serious business
Murder is a big business. Lots of jobs in the public sector too. CSI, police detectives an the ME's office all come to mind.

What will those people do when guns are banned?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
BroDeal said:
But it does keep the coffin makers in business and this economy needs all the help it can get.

Murder is a big business. Lots of jobs in the public sector too. CSI, police detectives an the ME's office all come to mind.

What will those people do when guns are banned?
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
If a bolt action is your weapon of choice, then good on ya.
Nope, stick with the Constitution. Muzzle loaders are what they were talking about (since it was all they knew of) muzzle loaders are what you shall have.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Nope, stick with the Constitution. Muzzle loaders are what they were talking about (since it was all they knew of) muzzle loaders are what you shall have.
the right of the people to keep and bear muzzle loaders, shall not be infringed. Got it.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
. . .
http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

is what got the hackles up. "Assault weapons" bann does nothing unless they are confiscated and even then they are not much of a contributor to intentional or unintentional gun homicides.

The point stands. Mandatory turn ins of guns (that are largely not he problem) is being discussed.
Your clarification is good. I'll work on defining "assault" weapon, but the primary indicator, I think, is that the design is first driven with human targets in mind, usually auto or auto capable if only semi-auto. Most are not full auto for civ market, but can be retrofit to convert to full.

For instance - the AK47 would never go deer hunting. I suppose someone might take an M16, but I doubt it. Ditto the newer M4.

Personally, I could care less about the rifles available - it is the auto-fire capability and large magazines which add the greatest amount of danger to a situation. Where there is a will, there is a way - as was demonstrated by the mass killings in Norway - but we also know that providing greater firepower increases the body count. And, that firearm availability increases the likehood of firearm use.

On the other hand, as I pointed out, in a real self-defense situation, all the extra lead in the put in the air by full auto or burst, hi-capacity magazine, is not essential. If I can't do it in less than 5 shots, I shouldn't be using the weapon for self-defense - I should be focusing on running away. In a gun battle, all that extra lead will serve a purpose, but when, as a citizen, will I ever be in a gun battle? So restricting my ability to engage in suppressive fire while in a gun battle is something I would be willing to concede to achieve a lower risk of others dying by another crazy getting their hands on too much firepower.


But my earlier point, when mentioning "assault" weapons, was to categorize what types of firearms are usually mentioned when discussing firearm restrictions. Not what I would mention. Sorry if I went a little afield there.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
the right of the people to keep and bear muzzle loaders, shall not be infringed. Got it.
Meaning, we shall not muzzle the muzzle loaders? We need to put a leash on this one. I'm taking a powder now. See ya.

<wave!>
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
hiero2 said:
Your clarification is good. I'll work on defining "assault" weapon, but the primary indicator, I think, is that the design is first driven with human targets in mind, usually auto or auto capable if only semi-auto. Most are not full auto for civ market, but can be retrofit to convert to full.

For instance - the AK47 would never go deer hunting. I suppose someone might take an M16, but I doubt it. Ditto the newer M4.

Personally, I could care less about the rifles available - it is the auto-fire capability and large magazines which add the greatest amount of danger to a situation. Where there is a will, there is a way - as was demonstrated by the mass killings in Norway - but we also know that providing greater firepower increases the body count. And, that firearm availability increases the likehood of firearm use.

On the other hand, as I pointed out, in a real self-defense situation, all the extra lead in the put in the air by full auto or burst, hi-capacity magazine, is not essential. If I can't do it in less than 5 shots, I shouldn't be using the weapon for self-defense - I should be focusing on running away. In a gun battle, all that extra lead will serve a purpose, but when, as a citizen, will I ever be in a gun battle? So restricting my ability to engage in suppressive fire while in a gun battle is something I would be willing to concede to achieve a lower risk of others dying by another crazy getting their hands on too much firepower.


But my earlier point, when mentioning "assault" weapons, was to categorize what types of firearms are usually mentioned when discussing firearm restrictions. Not what I would mention. Sorry if I went a little afield there.
All of this fuss over high capacity magazines and assault weapons.

On average there are about 11,000 firearm homicides every year. While there are deaths resulting from accidental discharges and suicides, this document will focus on intentional firearm homicides. Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year. Policies that address the larger firearm homicide issue will have a far greater impact even if they do not address the particular issues of mass shootings.
35 fatalities a year is what we are going crazy over. 35 of 11,000.

There's more than 35 Black on Black gun murders in Chicago a month. No root cause discussions going on about that. Why? Libs don't want to talk about the total failure of hand-out programs designed to "help" people.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
All of this fuss over high capacity magazines and assault weapons.

35 fatalities a year is what we are going crazy over. 35 of 11,000.

There's more than 35 Black on Black gun murders in Chicago a month. No root cause discussions going on about that. Why? Libs don't want to talk about the total failure of hand-out programs designed to "help" people.
Exactly right. The kerfuffle over assault weapons and high capacity magazines is anti-gun hysteria by those who have no concept of risk. The big gun problem is not assault weapons, which are almost never used in crimes. It is cheap, crappy handguns which are mostly used by criminals killing other criminals.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Assault style? To California Senator Diane Feinstein, that definition is "military looking" which translates to "scary looking."

My comment of long rifle was really more of be urban definition, but since you are looking for precision I will withdraw and say 'assault style'. My bad.:rolleyes:

Since precision is what you are looking for please go ahead and define "assault style rifle", or for that matter "assault weapon" for me. Seems to be a wide net there, maybe you can narrow that down.

If a bolt action is your weapon of choice, then good on ya.

And this;

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

is what got the hackles up. "Assault weapons" bann does nothing unless they are confiscated and even then they are not much of a contributor to intentional or unintentional gun homicides.

The point stands. Mandatory turn ins of guns (that are largely not he problem) is being discussed.
interesting read
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
BroDeal said:
Exactly right. The kerfuffle over assault weapons and high capacity magazines is anti-gun hysteria by those who have no concept of risk. The big gun problem is not assault weapons, which are almost never used in crimes. It is cheap, crappy handguns which are mostly used by criminals killing other criminals.[/QUOTE]

come by my office and see our collection of rounds that have come through the shop ceilings after "celebrations"

.22's .25's .38's
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Thoroughly unsurprising, libs are having problems with the first amendment too.

In the interview, Mr. Fayette praised Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and the transportation workers who had labored to repair roads and bridges washed out by Tropical Storm Irene in 2011. No matter. His supervisors said he had not been authorized to speak to the press, and they moved to fire him; he retired instead and left in February.

The story might have ended there — strange but small — but for the Cuomo administration’s reaction to an article about it that appeared on Wednesday in The Daily Enterprise.

On Thursday, livid that an engineer in the Adirondacks was being portrayed as a victim of Mr. Cuomo’s penchant for control, a top aide to the governor, Howard B. Glaser, took to the airwaves. He read aloud Mr. Fayette’s disciplinary history, describing him as a troubled employee who had previously been penalized for having an improper relationship with a subordinate, misusing his work e-mail to send sexually explicit messages and using his state-assigned vehicle for personal errands.
When simply firing someone who talks out of turn isn't enough, there's always the personal destruction route. And libs are extremely good at it.

Liberal utopia. Learn it. Live it. Love it. And if you don't there will be repercussions.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/nyregion/top-aide-to-cuomo-rebukes-state-worker-who-talked-to-the-press.html?_r=0
 
Scott SoCal said:
Thoroughly unsurprising, libs are having problems with the first amendment too.



When simply firing someone who talks out of turn isn't enough, there's always the personal destruction route. And libs are extremely good at it.

Liberal utopia. Learn it. Live it. Love it. And if you don't there will be repercussions.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/nyregion/top-aide-to-cuomo-rebukes-state-worker-who-talked-to-the-press.html?_r=0

http://newleftreview.org/II/79/mike-davis-the-last-white-election
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
"[The Second Amendment] is for our protection and the founders’ quotes make that very very clear and including against a government that would run amuck. We’ve got some people who think Sharia Law should be the law of the land, forget the Constitution." - the incomparable nutjob Louie Gohmert
Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness involving psychosis. Psychosis is the inability to tell what is real from what is imagined. The main feature of delusional disorder is the presence of delusions -- unshakable beliefs in something untrue.
If it's the mentally ill that are the problem then perhaps conservatives shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Thoroughly unsurprising, libs are having problems with the first amendment too.



When simply firing someone who talks out of turn isn't enough, there's always the personal destruction route. And libs are extremely good at it.

Liberal utopia. Learn it. Live it. Love it. And if you don't there will be repercussions.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/nyregion/top-aide-to-cuomo-rebukes-state-worker-who-talked-to-the-press.html?_r=0
Sure but the right takes the cake when it comes to a history of silencing and censorship, notwithstanding the experiments with "leftist" despotisms. A right to free speech, in any case, was a progressive conquest, which can't exactly be reconciled within the historical praxis of conservativism no?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Thoroughly unsurprising, libs are having problems with the first amendment too.



When simply firing someone who talks out of turn isn't enough, there's always the personal destruction route. And libs are extremely good at it.

Liberal utopia. Learn it. Live it. Love it. And if you don't there will be repercussions.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/nyregion/top-aide-to-cuomo-rebukes-state-worker-who-talked-to-the-press.html?_r=0
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/02/ted-cruz-sees-red-not-crimson-at-harvard.html

The new conservative, same as the old conservative - everyone's a communist plotting to overthrow the government.

Conservative utopia. Learn it. Live it. Love it. And if you don't there will be repercussions.

btw I do have to laugh - you keep using "utopia" and yet, given your self-proclaimed libertarian leanings, you really, truly are the only one around here who believes at all in any form of utopia. There is no one save the most dedicated communist who believes more fervently in utopia than does a libertarian.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-conference-board-leading-economic-index-lei-for-the-us-increases-192276181.html

The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® (LEI) for the U.S. Increases

Says Ken Goldstein , economist at The Conference Board: "The indicators point to an underlying economy that remains relatively sound but sluggish. Credit use has picked up, driven in part by relatively strong demand for auto loans. The biggest positive factor is housing. The housing market is now at twice the level reached during its recessionary lows, and will likely continue to improve through the spring, delivering some growth momentum to the labor market and the overall economy. The biggest risk, however, is the adverse impact of cuts in federal spending."
Well that doesn't fit the preferred narrative.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/02/ted-cruz-sees-red-not-crimson-at-harvard.html

The new conservative, same as the old conservative - everyone's a communist plotting to overthrow the government.

Conservative utopia. Learn it. Live it. Love it. And if you don't there will be repercussions.

btw I do have to laugh - you keep using "utopia" and yet, given your self-proclaimed libertarian leanings, you really, truly are the only one around here who believes at all in any form of utopia. There is no one save the most dedicated communist who believes more fervently in utopia than does a libertarian.
The new conservative, same as the old conservative - everyone's a communist plotting to overthrow the government.
Lanny Davis seems to think the questions should be answered. Hillary answered the question before being confirmed as secretary of state.

What's your problem with brown republicans?

btw I do have to laugh - you keep using "utopia" and yet, given your self-proclaimed libertarian leanings, you really, truly are the only one around here who believes at all in any form of utopia. There is no one save the most dedicated communist who believes more fervently in utopia than does a libertarian
And all the while it is you suggesting we change to be more like western Europe, Australia, Canada, anybody but America.:rolleyes:
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
The biggest risk, however, is the adverse impact of cuts in federal spending
Sure.

Lessee, remove earned money from the private economy, pay all the overhead to take the money out, redistribute it in a way that is in keeping with the admins ideology, pay the overhead required by the redistributionists. Efficient, right?

Then, make the average citizen so dependent upon the results of the process above that there is very little alternative to continue with the momentum created. Hook 'em.

Then we get the 'economists' who simply cannot see the forest for all the trees. And, because they are invested in keeping with the big govt meme, you fall right in line.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
rhubroma said:
Sure but the right takes the cake when it comes to a history of silencing and censorship, notwithstanding the experiments with "leftist" despotisms. A right to free speech, in any case, was a progressive conquest, which can't exactly be reconciled within the historical praxis of conservativism no?
Sure.

You tend to get that with power combined with dwindling checks and balances.
 
[Scott] This will skew left, but as the summary I'm quoting here suggests, it also takes on left ideologies from the last century--many of which were invented situationally and no longer apply.

The book deals with current anxieties about collapse, disaster, crisis--economically, environmentally and so on.

"Catastrophism typically takes on different shapes and tones according to the political impulses behind it. Following on Lilley’s introduction, each author contributes a chapter delineating and exploring the specific forms associated with more or less familiar positions on the political spectrum. Yuen leads off with an analysis of ‘environmental catastrophism’ and its defective assumptions about how and why people become actively politicized. In chapter two, Lilley surveys the history of catastrophism on the political left and critiques the leftist ‘couplet’ of determinist and voluntarist collapse scenarios. Next, Davis scrutinizes the political right, finding a broad willingness to view the gains and remnants of leftist social movements of the past as unmitigated disaster; this ‘disease catastrophism’ is linked to a potentially violent ‘cure catastrophism’ that welcomes apocalypse as the remedy."

http://retort.ludd.net/msg01763.html
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
And all the while it is you suggesting we change to be more like western Europe, Australia, Canada, anybody but America.:rolleyes:
Odd, don't recall ever claiming that they're utopia's though, eh? Like I said, you're the only one here who ever uses "utopia". I do recall saying many a time that we can learn from the experiences and experiments of others and adopt what works - for eg Finland has a far superior educational system, don't really see the problem with taking a look at it and learning what makes it so effective and seeing if we can incorporate at least some elements of it here. Why you find that to be so threatening is totally beyond me, other than perhaps like so many conservatives you're ideologically trapped by that ridiculous conceit of "American exceptionalism" and admitting that others have found a better way is unacceptable. Might want to take those blinkers off and have a look around, or is that actually what you're afraid of?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Then we get the 'economists' who simply cannot see the forest for all the trees. And, because they are invested in keeping with the big govt meme, you fall right in line.
Lessee...climate scientists are wrong and out to get you, economists are wrong and out to get you, government is out to get you, etc etc etc. Now, what might one call that? Oh right.

A paranoid delusion is the fixed, false belief that one is being harmed or persecuted by a particular person or group of people. Paranoid delusions are known technically as a “persecutory delusion.”

It involves the person’s belief that he or she is being conspired against, cheated, spied on, followed, poisoned or drugged, maliciously maligned, harassed, or obstructed in the pursuit of long-term goals.
Huh. Maybe the conservative persecution complex isn't just a myth after all.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Odd, don't recall ever claiming that they're utopia's though, eh? Like I said, you're the only one here who ever uses "utopia". I do recall saying many a time that we can learn from the experiences and experiments of others and adopt what works - for eg Finland has a far superior educational system, don't really see the problem with taking a look at it and learning what makes it so effective and seeing if we can incorporate at least some elements of it here. Why you find that to be so threatening is totally beyond me, other than perhaps like so many conservatives you're ideologically trapped by that ridiculous conceit of "American exceptionalism" and admitting that others have found a better way is unacceptable. Might want to take those blinkers off and have a look around, or is that actually what you're afraid of?
What have you got against utopia? Kinda touchy today, eh?

What would you prefer? Panacea? Ok, your social panacea it is then.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Lessee...climate scientists are wrong and out to get you, economists are wrong and out to get you, government is out to get you, etc etc etc. Now, what might one call that? Oh right.

Huh. Maybe the conservative persecution complex isn't just a myth after all.
Lessee...climate scientists are wrong and out to get you, economists are wrong and out to get you, government is out to get you, etc etc etc. Now, what might one call that? Oh right
Typically, you've got it wrong. Climate Scientist think they are right (and perhaps are) and want to destroy alternative opinion for reasons unknown (except money, of course).

Government isn't out to get me, they're out to trap you. I've never fallen for the line, "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help." You on the other hand, bought it. All of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY