The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Fenring on January 11, 2016, 01:14:02 AM

Title: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 11, 2016, 01:14:02 AM
This has been a long-standing theory for people who oppose gun control, and in the wake of the San Bernardino mass shooting and Obama's executive action to do something about gun control, the conspiracy theory that Obama's long-game is to eventually disarm America is flying high among some. Here's a segment of an interview between Obama and Anderson Cooper about this so-called conspiracy theory:

http://therightscoop.com/obama-cites-american-revolution-as-example-of-americans-being-falsely-paranoid-about-govt-tyranny/

I'm making this post to see whether anyone here detects some of the things I think I detect in Obama's answers, but that I'm not entirely sure of. I'll list the items in question:

1) Toward the beginning, when Obama says that American suspicion of government goes all the way back to its founding, where he says "America was...born suspicious of...some distant authority." Am I crazy, or does his inflection on 'some distant authority' somehow make the idea of suspicion of that 'distant authority' sound silly and far-fetched, almost like being suspicious of England was a conspiracy theory too? Especially his use of the modifier "some"; not just 'a distant authority', but 'some distant authority', almost as if it didn't matter which one or that the cause for doubt was bred in the suspicious nature of the Americans rather than in hard reality. Is Obama sort of ridiculing the founding as the birthplace of American conspiracy theory? Comparing the founding to the mentality of conspiracy theory certainly can't shed it in a good light, since I know from hearing him speak about it many times that Obama has zero respect for even the idea of conspiracy theories.

2) When Anderson asks Obama whether believing the government wants to disarm America is really a conspiracy theory, or just a legitimate doubt of good intent, Obama doubles down by ridiculing the theory as a conspiracy theory, playing into a sort of meme Obama has already established over time of even the term "conspiracy theory" being a cause for automatic ridicule. He seems to be equivocating between the literal definition of the term, meaning people who covertly to try achieve some end, with the euphemistic way many people use it, which means a nutso theory about secret cabals and nefarious motives like as in the X-Files. So while the question was geared towards asking whether doubting the motives of the federal government should really be called a conspiracy theory in the usual sense, Obama insists it is one which seems to me to be saying simultaneously that not only isn't it true but that anyone who believes it is silly. Does anyone else see what he did there? Note that whether or not Obama actually has the agenda of disarming America, one would think that concern about the motive would be entirely justified and reasonable. But it seems like Obama doesn't even respect that concern.

3) Finally, when addressing the issue of the long-game motive of taking away everyone's guns, Obama says he has one year left in his Presidency so what can he really do? But isn't this comment a serious dodge, since if Hillary wins she'll literally continue exactly where he left off? I have no doubt her policy on this would mirror his identically. Whether or not I agree with his initiative, isn't it dishonest to claim that his policies aren't informed by future planning when Hillary has claimed time and again that her Presidency would simply follow the principles of Obama's in most respects? She might not win, obviously, but we can be pretty sure Obama has to bank on her winning when he sets plans in motion.

Overall...I don't know. It doesn't seem like Obama is taking this issue very seriously. In fact his agenda seems to be to insinuate that it shouldn't be taken seriously, which is a smokescreen of sorts. I honestly can't say whether I think there's any credence to the idea that the government wants to slowly disarm America, but since so many Americans pass around social media messages that are anti-gun and ridiculing of guns in America, I'm not sure it's appropriate to act as if there's no push for this at all from the left. It may not be what Obama personally wants (I don't know), but it's what many people want, and calling fear of this a stupid conspiracy theory doesn't sound that respectful. But maybe I'm reading too much into small details?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Mynnion on January 11, 2016, 08:26:24 AM
I am sure there are those in both the government and the general public.  However when I consider the idea of conspiracy I have my own.  I would suggest that organizations such as the NRA purposely create, grossly overstate the risk, and circulate them.  This has a two-fold effect.  First it increases their membership and it also drastically increases gun and ammo sales.  Follow the money.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 09:36:53 AM
I think this relates to another topic that recently came up.  Obama may not have a plan mapped out or any expectation it would be possible to ban all guns.  However there are many people who expect he would WANT to ban all private firearm ownership.  And if you believe that's what he WANTS then it's easy to see every action related to guns as an incremental step towards that goal.

There is the crazy person belief:  "Obama is coming for our guns any day now!"
And the plausible belief:  "Obama and other liberals would like chip away at our right to own guns through legislation and social pressure until such a day that a ban will be possible."

So is it a crazy conspiracy theory?  Depends on the timeline really.  There ARE people conspiring to get guns out of the public.  The amount of power and time table you attribute to them determines how much of a nut you are.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Gaoics79 on January 11, 2016, 09:55:42 AM
I think Obama supports the 2nd amendment like he supported the traditional definition of marriage. He is an educated liberal, and he likely believes what others of his type believe. While a complete disarming (ie guns being illegal) may not be his end goal, something like what we have in Canada probably is, which is to say the marginalization of gun culture, particularly in urban areas, and rendering ownership of guns impractical at best outside a narrow hobbeyist millieu. If I were a gun enthusiast, I'd be suspicious too. Obama almost certainly does want to disarm America to a large extent.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 11, 2016, 10:12:12 AM
Quote
There is the crazy person belief:  "Obama is coming for our guns any day now!"
And the plausible belief:  "Obama and other liberals would like chip away at our right to own guns through legislation and social pressure until such a day that a ban will be possible."
I disagree that there is some endgame that would take a generation (of DEMOCRATIC Presidents) to achieve.  Some people see every unwanted action as evidence of a slippery slope.  We're a conspiracy obsessed culture these days.
Quote
I think Obama supports the 2nd amendment like he supported the traditional definition of marriage.
...
Obama almost certainly does want to disarm America to a large extent.
Yes, it's a conspiracy. His motives are completely hidden but we know what's in his heart anyway.

What if -- just a what if -- he only wants to clarify and strengthen gun laws and lawful management of guns to reduce gun related violence.  Anybody think that might be possible? Maybe?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: JoshCrow on January 11, 2016, 10:20:58 AM
I'll echo what D.W. and jasonr said - it seems obvious that Obama is no fan of guns or the 2nd amendment but has essentially no chance of achieving a gun-free USA. As D.W. said, the idea of a "conspiracy" is basically a question of degree for the pro-gun team... anyone afraid of losing their guns tomorrow is probably a moron, but if it's merely the thought of some long-term cultural change occuring against guns, then it's not unreasonable as a fear.

Personally, I think this IS a cultural battle, not a legal one. The very idea of a "gun culture" is disturbed. I would view anyone in possession of more than a simple handgun for defense as basically being "psychologically suspect". The elevation of guns into a symbol beyond merely being a tool (for hunting, defense) is, in my opinion, a perverse fetishization and a symptom of unwellness. It is called a symbol of freedom, but Captain America said it best in the Winter Soldier film: "This isn't freedom. This is fear."
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 10:48:17 AM
Quote
What if -- just a what if -- he only wants to clarify and strengthen gun laws and lawful management of guns to reduce gun related violence.  Anybody think that might be possible? Maybe?
I use to.  But too many otherwise smart people come up with proposals so ridiculous, impractical, unenforceable, technologically impossible (for the moment), financially improbable or just based on shockingly bad misinformation, that I no longer do.

I find myself in the position of loosing respect for my President's intellect (and he is mine as I voted for him and overall support his leadership), OR admit that he's playing politics on the gun issue and knows full well the "stupid" suggestions will go nowhere, and the others won't actually do what he claims to want. 

I believe he is trying to act as a counter influence to gun culture by attempting to frame gun owners as irrational, reckless and/or mentally unhealthy.  I happen to disagree with that tactic as a means to make the average citizen safer. 

There are a lot of things that could be done to reduce gun violence.  There are few things he can do by himself.  If the majority of the pro gun control camp would quit behaving exactly as a gun grabbing conspirator WOULD act, the conspiracy theorists would have a lot less to talk about.

It is a cultural battle like Josh says.  If enough of your friends and family would all look at you like you are some crazy murderer waiting to happen for just owning a gun that may very well reduce gun ownership.  That could in turn reduce gun violence and will certainly reduce suicide by guns and accidental injuries and deaths with firearms.  To many making the gun owning public uncomfortable or pariahs is a small price to pay for ANY reduction to those numbers.  To them the question of if wide scale disarmament would have other implications is best not thought about.  Or at least, worth the trade...
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: NobleHunter on January 11, 2016, 11:03:31 AM
Personally, I think this IS a cultural battle, not a legal one. The very idea of a "gun culture" is disturbed. I would view anyone in possession of more than a simple handgun for defense as basically being "psychologically suspect". The elevation of guns into a symbol beyond merely being a tool (for hunting, defense) is, in my opinion, a perverse fetishization and a symptom of unwellness. It is called a symbol of freedom, but Captain America said it best in the Winter Soldier film: "This isn't freedom. This is fear."
Don't neglect the geek side of gun culture. I'm hoping that most people with a plethora of guns collect them because they are well-engineered solutions to tricky problems.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 11, 2016, 11:09:09 AM
If they're really concerned about the gun show "loop hole" why not just have an ATF booth at the shows that will run back ground checks for free for private sales.  Being given an all clear would appeal to a heck of lot of people who engage in permitted private sales.  And honestly, its already a violation of law for some to act as a dealer, even at a gun show, and not register.

On the main topic, I have no doubt that the President would impose bans if he could get away with it.  If Congress passed an assault rifle ban, he'd sign it tomorrow.  He'd sign whatever ban bill they put in front of him, unless he was sure it would get overridden by the courts (even then he might sign it and try to intimidate the courts again).
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 11, 2016, 11:31:58 AM
Quote
If they're really concerned about the gun show "loop hole" why not just have an ATF booth at the shows that will run back ground checks for free for private sales.
You mean nanny people who are too distracted to follow the law?  If this idea catches on, perhaps Walmart can have Sales Tax collection booths in stores so cashiers don't have to waste time counting out change.

FWIW, my brother has dozens of guns and lives on a heavily wooded property.  He never goes out without a pistol for protection, even on his own land.  He (says he) once shot in the direction of someone (not at him) fishing on a pond on his property to let him know he was trespassing.  He says he agrees with me that gun nuts are a problem in our culture, but he's got things under control in his life.  He also thinks the UN is going to ban all guns, but he's got that under control, too.

The outspoken members of the privileged gun class want to have their guns and fire them, too.  It's nobody's business if they do, and nobody's right to tell them otherwise.

A second FWIW, in a few of our long ago gun threads several of us put forward actual proposals for how to reduce gun violence.  If you remember what you wanted done, we should revisit that discussion and see if we can make sense of it all.  Maybe Rafi will come back to laugh at us and remind us how many guns he's made lately with his 3D printer.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 11, 2016, 11:42:24 AM
What on Earth are you going on about?  How is being helpful to private sellers and buyers at gun show nannying them?  You do understand that most people honestly want to follow the law, and would be happy to avail themselves of a safe harbor even if they didn't strictly need to do so?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 11:48:50 AM
Now if gun control advocates want to come up with an IPhone app and magnetic strip scanner that ties into a drivers license or state ID magnetic strip initiative (some already are) and any private seller can wait a minute or two for approval?  Then sure. 

Though the anti-registry group would still wail.

The suggestion for an ATF booth isn't a bad one.  It's really that or ban gun shows or private transfer and make all transfers use a 3rd party license gun seller with the ability to process the check.  Make inheritance of a weapon or gifting of a weapon also require that process.  (back to anti-registry concerns again)

I personally have no problem with a gun registry but a lot of people do.  A lot of those likely because of their natural (or learned) distrust for politicians and the media regarding such information.


As for the 3D printing all you can really do is ban them all.  Treat them like a stolen gun with the serial numbers filed off I guess.  Or requires a federal license to possess one.  Even then, that's an additional charge after the fact if it's involved in a crime.  Or the off chance someone gets frisked and caught with one.  Fortunately (?) they are still unreliable enough or the medium is cost prohibitive enough that we aren't faced with it in any significant number.

SMART politicians would be trying to draft "common sense" laws that make an effort to stay ahead of technology.  You know, instead of yammering about solutions that rely on technology still ahead of us...  Or things we aren't willing to pay for.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 11, 2016, 12:01:39 PM
I should have added this before, but everyone does understand that the dealers at gun shows in fact are registered and required to run background checks, it's just the private sellers (ie people selling from their own collection and not as part of a business) that are not registered?  Do you also understand that the ATF won't even accept a licensing request from such a seller?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 12:08:51 PM
Quote
Do you also understand that the ATF won't even accept a licensing request from such a seller?
  Can you explain this part?  From the private or licensed seller?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 11, 2016, 12:13:06 PM
I should have added this before, but everyone does understand that the dealers at gun shows in fact are registered and required to run background checks, it's just the private sellers (ie people selling from their own collection and not as part of a business) that are not registered?  Do you also understand that the ATF won't even accept a licensing request from such a seller?

I didn't know that, thanks.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 12:15:46 PM
NM, re-read and it is clear you meant private sellers.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 11, 2016, 12:16:57 PM
Quote
The suggestion for an ATF booth isn't a bad one.  It's really that or ban gun shows or private transfer and make all transfers use a 3rd party license gun seller with the ability to process the check.  Make inheritance of a weapon or gifting of a weapon also require that process.  (back to anti-registry concerns again)
Do you really think the ATF has the manpower to staff gun shows?  As Pete pointed out in another thread, they aren't even instigating as many prosecutions as they did 10 years ago.  They don't have staff or budget due to Congressional cutbacks.
Quote
As for the 3D printing all you can really do is ban them all.  Treat them like a stolen gun with the serial numbers filed off I guess.  Or requires a federal license to possess one.
I like the idea of printing them with serial numbers, which would require the person to register as a gun manufacturer and acquire the serial numbers ahead of time.  That seems reasonable.  There are many other things you can't make without government approval.
Quote
I should have added this before, but everyone does understand that the dealers at gun shows in fact are registered and required to run background checks, it's just the private sellers (ie people selling from their own collection and not as part of a business) that are not registered?
Every state has different laws about background checks, how many guns can be purchased, how often and whether ex-felons can buy them.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: NobleHunter on January 11, 2016, 12:17:38 PM
This whole mess seems like the mirror of the abortion debate. Any sensible restriction or compromise is rejected due to the risk of a slippery slope. So a whole lot of insensible restrictions and compromises are attempted to either to do something, anything, or to provide the appearance of same. It's made worse by difficulties in gathering or believing evidence so it's harder for more disinterested parties to judge the sensibility of any proposed solutions.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 11, 2016, 12:20:06 PM
This whole mess seems like the mirror of the abortion debate. Any sensible restriction or compromise is rejected due to the risk of a slippery slope. So a whole lot of insensible restrictions and compromises are attempted to either to do something, anything, or to provide the appearance of same. It's made worse by difficulties in gathering or believing evidence so it's harder for more disinterested parties to judge the sensibility of any proposed solutions.
I agree. The conversation itself has to change.  That requires people who reject additional gun restrictions to recognize that there is a moderate and equally informed and well-meaning opposition with whom they must engage.  The silly swizzle we have now is due to the lack of a full complement of good faith gun advocates willing to entertain real change.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 12:25:01 PM
No I don't think they have the manpower at present.  The question would be (one of those we don't like asking) is if the cost for that staffing pays off in a reduction of gun violence, gun accidents or gun suicides.  (I believe the answer is NO, but I'm not a researcher.)

3D printing with a serial number and forcing them to get a FFL is all well and good but it falls into the "unenforceable" laws.  It's not a BAD idea, but I am skeptical it will have any impact.  Beyond that, I'm not sure where it falls on a buyer's rights argument.  If it was for your own use, is it more like buying a weapon or is it worthy of the scrutiny a re-seller or gunsmith warrants?  I'm inclined to make them illegal, but we don't have a firm grasp on the ubiquitousness or reliability of 3D printed goods moving forward.

The opposition to research is the worst part in my eyes NH.  It's not like the NRA couldn't fund their own research if they feel the research of others is bogus/flawed.


"Good faith" must be earned.  To this day most people seem to think assault weapons = fully automatic machine guns without realizing those are already restricted to the point of de facto ban.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 11, 2016, 12:50:21 PM
I agree. The conversation itself has to change.  That requires people who reject additional gun restrictions to recognize that there is a moderate and equally informed and well-meaning opposition with whom they must engage.  The silly swizzle we have now is due to the lack of a full complement of good faith gun advocates willing to entertain real change.

It sounds like when you say the conversation has to change you mean to say that the other side in the conversation has to change, but not your side. Isn't it possible that they won't change because some element on your side, which gives them cause for doubt, won't change either?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 11, 2016, 12:56:31 PM
Quote
3D printing with a serial number and forcing them to get a FFL is all well and good but it falls into the "unenforceable" laws.  It's not a BAD idea, but I am skeptical it will have any impact.  Beyond that, I'm not sure where it falls on a buyer's rights argument.  If it was for your own use, is it more like buying a weapon or is it worthy of the scrutiny a re-seller or gunsmith warrants?  I'm inclined to make them illegal, but we don't have a firm grasp on the ubiquitousness or reliability of 3D printed goods moving forward.
That's like saying that any law governing something you can do out of the watchful eye of government is unenforceable and therefore wasted effort.  I'm willing to acknowledge that criminals will find ways to work around laws, but doesn't mean we (aka the "good guys") stop finding ways to prevent them from doing that.

Quote
It sounds like when you say the conversation has to change you mean to say that the other side in the conversation has to change, but not your side. Isn't it possible that they won't change because some element on your side, which gives them cause for doubt, won't change either?
Be honest, if even Sandy Hook didn't sway "the other side", how far would "our side" have to change before they sat down in good faith?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Wayward Son on January 11, 2016, 01:01:01 PM
The idea of having an ATF booth to check registration is a good one, but it would HAVE to come from the Republican Congress.  First, because the cost would have to be approved by Congress, and second, because if it came from Democrats or (shudder) President Obama, it would be dead in the water.  After all, only Nixon could go to China. :)

I would see at a good faith effort to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

Anyone know what the NRA's response to the idea is (or would be)? ;)
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 11, 2016, 01:07:29 PM
This whole mess seems like the mirror of the abortion debate. Any sensible restriction or compromise is rejected due to the risk of a slippery slope.
Can you give examples.  I do think people are concerned about a slippery slope, and justifiably so, because they believe the end goal of the pro-regulation side is to enact bans.  Each new 'compromise' starts with the last compromise as a baseline from which there can be no retreat (even where a change is demonstrated to have been flawed and/or not had any of the promised effects).

But more, I think I dispute the concept of "sensible" or "common sense" restrictions.  That's marketing language to skip the debate on whether a restriction is justifiable by the "gains" versus the "costs."  So let's be specific.  What "sensible" restrictions are being rejected?

I see claims about a national registry being "sensible" and disagree.

I see claims about closing the "gun show loophole" being claimed as "common sense" when in reality there is no gun show loop hole, there's just a private transaction exemption.  Nothing's been put forward that would close that "loophole".

Smart guns?  Technically infeasible at the moment.

Limits on magazines?  Plausible but not as one sided as they appear to the pro-regulation side.

Maybe clarify what you think are "sensible" changes that are resisted.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 11, 2016, 01:08:53 PM
Anyone know what the NRA's response to the idea is (or would be)? ;)
I don't know, but they did support that you could have a licensed dealer do exactly what I propose.  They will run a background check for a fee, the advantage here is that it would be free.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 01:14:36 PM
I'm all for a law requiring that a 3D printed gun be given a unique serial number then be registered.  Not that we live in the CSI world depicted on TV but you also can't apply the same expectations/rules on uncontrolled (unapproved?) manufacturing materials/processes. 

You could ban them outright, but again if 3D printing becomes some wave of the future, then you will then either have to play catch-up, or the "anti-gun" crowd would stall those measures as an end run on banning the new standard.  No clue how much of that is nonsense or the future...

I'm not saying we should do nothing but the easier something is to do behind closed doors the less effective it is to regulate.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but you should lower your expectations. 

If someone ONLY wanted a handgun, that they expected to need to fire only a very limited amount of shots (1 or 2) to defend against home intrusion, how do you convince them that they should obey the law and NOT make a 3D gun if they couldn't afford a manufactured one?  Or convince someone who already is prohibited from owning a legal gun that it doesn't make sense to avoid the risk of buying a gun on the street?    If they are only going to use it in a life or death defensive situation, the risk of, "oh no, I'll get in trouble!" doesn't mean a lot.

I rate this along with the gun safe legislation.  It's not a BAD idea, it's just not going to amount to much beyond an additional fine/time on top of other charges.

Quote
how far would "our side" have to change before they sat down in good faith?
Being well informed on the mechanics and logistics of weapons and their ownership as well as making proposals that would have significant impact on stated goals would be a good start.  Then comes the hard (impossible?) ones.  Acknowledging that someone has the right to defend their life with lethal force.  Acknowledging that firearm collection and range shooting is a hobby / sport to some.  Acknowledging that a one size fits all solution may not work when considering rural/wilderness residents compared to urban residents. 

Then you need to convince some that any concessions are well meaning and reasonable on their own and not just a "what we could get push through or trick the other side into accepting because we can't achieve a full ban... yet."  That is already impossible for SOME on the other side.  For others, the tactics used in the name of reason or responsibility that fall short is poisoning more against you.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 01:19:33 PM
Workshops where rather than rejecting a proposal the other side asks, "OK, we'll lets say you get exactly what you just asked for.  What result do you anticipate?"

Then have a discussion pointing out flaws if any in their expectations and go over why you oppose them as presented.

"Common sense", on a divisive issue in politics, is more often than not grounded in ignorance.

For example I find magazine size restrictions perplexing.  Take a group of legislators to a range.  Have an inexperienced non-gun user fire and do a magazine swap.  Have a moderately proficient user do it.  Have a practiced user do it.  Then ask them, if they still feel that a restriction of magazine size would save lives.

For those against assault weapons present them with a comparable hunting rifle and ask them if they feel the differences are significant enough to require special laws for this subset of firearms.

For laws which are reactive rather than proactive (such as gun safes) ask if they accept that people will break them and if the goal is to save children's lives when dealing with unsecured guns, what they are more likely to achieve is increasing punishment on a parent who is already dealing with an injured or lost child.  (Yes, IS an acceptable answer, but I feel the question should be asked.)
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: NobleHunter on January 11, 2016, 01:37:54 PM
Can you give examples.  I do think people are concerned about a slippery slope, and justifiably so, because they believe the end goal of the pro-regulation side is to enact bans.  Each new 'compromise' starts with the last compromise as a baseline from which there can be no retreat (even where a change is demonstrated to have been flawed and/or not had any of the promised effects).

But more, I think I dispute the concept of "sensible" or "common sense" restrictions.  That's marketing language to skip the debate on whether a restriction is justifiable by the "gains" versus the "costs."  So let's be specific.  What "sensible" restrictions are being rejected?

I see claims about a national registry being "sensible" and disagree.

I see claims about closing the "gun show loophole" being claimed as "common sense" when in reality there is no gun show loop hole, there's just a private transaction exemption.  Nothing's been put forward that would close that "loophole".

Smart guns?  Technically infeasible at the moment.

Limits on magazines?  Plausible but not as one sided as they appear to the pro-regulation side.

Maybe clarify what you think are "sensible" changes that are resisted.
It's hard to come with proper examples of sensible changes because no one's suggested them on a national level in a while. All the make-work changes are taking up all the oxygen because no one wants to hand the Supreme Court the chance to further demolish the government's ability to implement gun control in a more reasonable future. That or the changes are about rolling back gun control which seems insensible to me. While not--strictly speaking--about gun control, there's the Docs versus Glocks thing down in Florida which is about restricting sensible activity by private individuals.

It's easier to see the insensible suggestions. Magazine restrictions are utter nonsense and a product of the discourse being driven by mass-shootings. Smart guns need a X-prize (and a market, for that matter) rather than regulation. Assault weapons bans are semantic shell game which seems to be based on the arbitrary application of the word "assault" to make certain guns sound more dangerous.

The gun control question also seems similar to alcohol and drunk driving. Prohibition doesn't work but clear and ubiquitous disapproval of the abuse of alcohol, especially drunk driving, seems to have been effective in mitigating the worst of the damage. On the other hand, given that one of the major consequences of poor gun safety is dead children, I'm not sure there's any hope of social disapproval convincing people to be more responsible.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 01:44:02 PM
That was my point on the gun safe.  If safeguarding your child from a gun related accident or death is not enough motivation, WTF good will a fine or extra year in jail do to motivate them?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: NobleHunter on January 11, 2016, 01:55:54 PM
That was my point on the gun safe.  If safeguarding your child from a gun related accident or death is not enough motivation, WTF good will a fine or extra year in jail do to motivate them?
And the problem is there's no good way to detect improper storage before an accident. Random inspections are unconstitutional and a bad plan besides. Complaint driven inspections are slightly better but still not the kind of thing a free society should be using. An "in plain sight" rule wouldn't greatly expand the ability to detect unsafe storage and since the cops would already be in the house, I suspect there wouldn't be a measurable effect.

I suppose centralized storage would work but that wouldn't pass the current reading of the Second Amendment and would invalidate the purpose of home defense.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: JoshCrow on January 11, 2016, 02:14:52 PM
And the problem is there's no good way to detect improper storage before an accident. Random inspections are unconstitutional and a bad plan besides. Complaint driven inspections are slightly better but still not the kind of thing a free society should be using. An "in plain sight" rule wouldn't greatly expand the ability to detect unsafe storage and since the cops would already be in the house, I suspect there wouldn't be a measurable effect.

I suppose centralized storage would work but that wouldn't pass the current reading of the Second Amendment and would invalidate the purpose of home defense.

Mandatory smart gun technology (e.g. gun will only fire if within arm's length of a coded wristwatch) is a plausible answer that would drastically reduce the suicide/accidental death rate. The tech is actually commercially available but has faced opposition getting to market (from guess who).
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 02:21:20 PM
Quote
The tech is actually commercially available but has faced opposition getting to market (from guess who).
By anyone who wants a gun for self defense or for law enforcement or military work.  Or even from any non gun user who has forgotten to plug in their phone overnight and realizes that going without calls is probably less serious than drawing a weapon when a deadly situation occurs and having nothing happen...

Also, the delicate components tend to not work so well beyond say a .22 cal.  Though I haven't researched actual studies on electronic component durability.  That was just something I read in a few places without citation.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 02:23:56 PM
Now selling a gun like that (when reliable) where the safe is the charging station...  You may have a market there.  That said, the cost becomes an issue.  Is the "right to self defense" (or however you want to state it) something only those of a certain economic level are entitled to?  Could we / should we subsidize this technology?  Tax credits?  /shrug 

High bar:  Get police to adopt this.
Lower bar:  Get federal law enforcement officers to adopt this.
Executive decision?:  Get your secret service detail to adopt this.

I'd accept any of these and then would adopt it myself if affordable.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: JoshCrow on January 11, 2016, 02:40:33 PM
Now selling a gun like that (when reliable) where the safe is the charging station...  You may have a market there.  That said, the cost becomes an issue.  Is the "right to self defense" (or however you want to state it) something only those of a certain economic level are entitled to?  Could we / should we subsidize this technology?  Tax credits?  /shrug 

Charging station? If they were designed properly they would last as long as a digital wristwatch. This isn't a smartphone - it's a dumb short-range transmitter. And you'd be surprised how robust embedded electronics can be if properly designed - I don't see a lot of serious technological barriers here. I'm speaking as a professor of electrical engineering here (which I rarely get to do on this forum).
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 02:48:53 PM
How do you envision this working?  This requires some actuator to work.  Unless you are going full electronic firing (which is also already existing tech though never used to my knowledge in a handgun) 

Now maybe someone has plans for a kinetic powered or watch battery system but this is going to require some juice the way I see it.  Also, it would want (IMO) a visual indicator that it was functioning / paired. 

I always envisioned this as unique RFID short range detector.  Probably grip activated.  Then on detection of the paired watch/ring/implant it would disengage the (mechanical) safety. 

An electric firing system would make the electric safety easier to implement but I know little about the power required to ignite a charge or the cost per round of ammunition built for such a system.

You've got me interested again and maybe I'll look up the latest innovations in this regard.  The last time I did so (a couple of years ago) they were pipe dreams or prone to failure.  Also worth noting, law enforcement also rejected the concept and demand to be exempted to any legislation regarding its requirement.

I'm glad at least you are focusing on the most realistic approach to smart guns over say the biometric scanning / fingerprint reader options.  (Though a magnetic ring; fully mechanical may have merit.  But more easy to defeat/spoof) 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: NobleHunter on January 11, 2016, 02:53:53 PM
I think police/military adoptation would actually be easier from a technical point of view. With organizations, the manufacturer can provide preventive maintenance instructions and expect them to be followed. Assuming they're fired regularly for training, the majority of failures would be non-critical.*

With private users, the gun could sit forgotten for years and then need to work for the first shot. In that scenario, almost all failures would be critical.

*A critical failure defined as an inability to fire when the bearer's life is in danger.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 03:00:15 PM
That's why I like a plug in safe which is also a charging station.  It would meet that criteria. 

Actually I think "smart guns" is a "dumb idea".  But if you were set on it, I think this would be the way to go about it.

The one that teases my brain is what happens when we get the technology to have our blaster/phaser/sound emitting device able to "set for stun"?  Once that tech is reliable and affordable how does the debate turn?

Then rather than lethal defense we are talking about the threat of death as a deterring effect on aggression.  We must decide if the benefits of saved lives even in self defense is worth the risk such an invention would be to those who would use it to facilitate theft/kidnapping/rape?  I suppose tazers already brought a lot of that to reality... 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: NobleHunter on January 11, 2016, 03:15:09 PM
Plug in safe would also have more components with correspondingly higher risk of latent failures. People who get guns purely for home defense are sufficiently irrational that for smart guns to be a viable solution, they need to be as reliable as dumb guns.

I think real stunners in the high science fiction style are immeasurably better than guns for personel self-defense. That they'd be misused doesn't outweigh the advantages. Cops would likely want both since a lethal weapon can deter a group since no one wants to be the one who gets killed in the process of taking a gun away. Against a stunner, people are a lot less worried about being shot(credit Lois McMaster Bujold).
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 03:19:28 PM
But if a "stunner" could drop a perpetrator reliably and as or more swiftly than a barbaric slug thrower would we want our cops to have both?  I mean, why allow anyone the option of ending a life outside of the courts if we still had the death penalty? 

Apologies if this is a distraction from the main topic.  :P

Granted you couldn't do all the nifty TV and movie (and occasional reality) tricks like shooting off locks or door hinges for breech entries with a stunner...
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: NobleHunter on January 11, 2016, 03:28:46 PM
A stunner just doesn't have enough authority for crowd control. Going up against a crowd with only non-lethal weapons greatly increases the chance of them being taken away and the cop getting beaten to death (assuming the weapon can only stun one or two people at a time and the 21 ft rule still holds). I think it's fairly safe to say people who wouldn't charge a drawn gun would be much more likely to charge a stunner.

Hey look, a topical article: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/01/smart_gun_safety_technology_explained.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/01/smart_gun_safety_technology_explained.html)
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 03:46:48 PM
I'm totally unfamiliar with "shape memory alloy-based components" or how they apply to the topic.
DGR sounds interesting in concept. 

Quote
Power is clearly a concern here, too. But advances in microprocessor technology and battery storage that have been driven by smartphones and portable electronics remove this issue as a showstopper. Motion detection and wake-up software can reduce battery drain during storage. Integrating the power supply to the ammunition clip and even charging by mechanical cycling are all ways to address power loss as a mode of failure.
Not a fan of this handwaving statement.  Some numbers (in hours or days between recharge) would be useful / more convincing.

The electronics failure being lower than mechanical failure is good to know.  Though that I assume falls to quality and cost of components.

Quote
The recognition rates for fingerprint detectors have been claimed to be as high as 99.99 percent (1 in 10,000 failure rate).
If this is possible, why the sweet *censored* is this tech NEVER USED ANYWHERE?  My failure rate on any device I've used is more like 10-20%.  :(

Thanks for the link
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 04:05:51 PM
OK, S.M.A. is pretty cool stuff.  Not sure if it's the answer to this puzzle but glad I looked it up.  :)
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 11, 2016, 04:22:53 PM
Mandatory smart gun technology (e.g. gun will only fire if within arm's length of a coded wristwatch) is a plausible answer that would drastically reduce the suicide/accidental death rate. The tech is actually commercially available but has faced opposition getting to market (from guess who).
I don't think this is a reasonable answer as a mandatory solution, though it would work for a lot of circumstances.  I think people would avoid it for the same reason the police did, risk of malfunction and risk of being jammed.  Guns that won't fire because a criminal carries a stronger wristwatch transmitter are useless for home defense, and completely useless for protection against government abuse when they will have wide capacity jammers. 

Gun safes are great for personal collections, sport and hunting weapons, but far less useful in many home defense contexts.

Stunners are a good option, but not a full replacement.  We're no where near the point of producing them with sufficient range, accuracy and repeated firing capability that they could match a gun.  Nor with the kind of control that makes them equally effective against a 150 pound man and a 350 pound man.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 11, 2016, 04:49:12 PM
What about the point in the video where Obama could be interpreted as mocking suspicion of government? "Some distant authority." Might it not be hard for both sides of this to see eye to eye when the spokesperson for one side (Obama for gun control) seems to be casting an aspersion on people who fear that government tends to encroach on their rights?

Another question I'd like to pose relates to something mentioned here and that comes up a lot in gun debates, which is the suicide rate. I understand that guns make suicide easier and removes difficulties where, in the process of overcoming them, someone might change their mind. However, I'm still not quite sure why gun control for the purposes of curbing suicide is a real discussion. Is the argument seriously that since suicide is 'illegal' it's about preventing crime? Or is it about saving lives? But in this case it's not saving innocent lives from aggressors, it's 'saving lives' in the sense of forcing someone to stay alive who wants to die. This is obviously not a cut-and-dry matter because someone might want to die one day and live the next, and things can improve for a person, and so forth. But what I'm addressing is the "we need to stop these people!" attitude which makes sense when related to criminals or people with intent to harm others, but is stopping people committing suicide really high up on the agenda when it comes to gun safety? After all, suicide isn't necessarily a public safety issue, it's the weapon being used 'as intended', just not in a circumstance onlookers like to see (or encourage). Imagine if guns were taken away from depressed people (apparently a possible reality soon in California!) and they still wanted to kill themselves. Now they'd have to take pills (ineffective much of the time), or jump off a building or something. In both cases the public fallout from the attempt is worse than with a gun suicide, since in the former case the person has to be hospitalized much of the same and drag others through a healing process, while in the case of jumping off a bridge or building I feel like there's a much greater public danger (impacts, collateral damage, scaring people) than there would be for a suicide at home.

I guess I can see a case for not wanting unstable people to have guns to protect them, but is "we have to stop them killing themselves" really applicable to the general agenda of making Americans feel safer?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 05:08:29 PM
I don't think so, but it is a very high percentage of gun related deaths that get trotted out.  I think it's MOST deaths actually. 

That is a "problem" worth looking into.  I would like to say it should be divorced from the subject of gun control but if you were of the opinion that "saving lives" is the goal, it would be silly to ignore suicide by guns.

Focusing entirely on gun crime and crime prevention and self defense and accident prevention would be my preference.  When someone wants to check out I think our primary concern is eliminating or minimizing harm they do to others in the process. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 11, 2016, 05:25:17 PM
What about the point in the video where Obama could be interpreted as mocking suspicion of government? "Some distant authority."
I always find it interesting that the idea of some distant authority violating our rights is a "conspiracy theory" to the same people that support Black Lives matter and deride police abuse and the shoot first mentality that they seem to have.  It's literally to me a situation that needs one of those cartoon lightbulbs going off over their heads to correct.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 11, 2016, 06:30:41 PM
Kinda like that uncomfortable feeling you get when you see how peaceful everything is and how respectful an open carry protest or "occupation" is compared to how some of the unarmed ones go...

Ya, it's likely built upon mutual fear of the crap hitting the fan but... it seems to insure good behavior on both sides. 
Accept when it doesn't...
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: JoshCrow on January 11, 2016, 07:10:16 PM
What about the point in the video where Obama could be interpreted as mocking suspicion of government? "Some distant authority." Might it not be hard for both sides of this to see eye to eye when the spokesperson for one side (Obama for gun control) seems to be casting an aspersion on people who fear that government tends to encroach on their rights?

It's not that I don't see the interpretation you're referring to, but I feel like your decision to scrutinize it so closely is part of what contributes to the overall requirement for politicians to speak blandly and say nothing. If we're going to parse between "some" and "a" as an object of interest in a president's ad libbed speech (in a live interview, I would add), I think we're actively encouraging them to say nothing at all lest they betray a thought unfavorable to some.

Quote
I guess I can see a case for not wanting unstable people to have guns to protect them, but is "we have to stop them killing themselves" really applicable to the general agenda of making Americans feel safer?

I am a strong supporter of euthanasia yet I feel like preventing people (particularly young people) from ending themselves during what is likely a temporarily bad spot in their lives is indeed a public service of value. Suicide attempts with guns are, to put it bluntly, too effective compared to other means, and thus do not often function as a "cry for help" to alert people to a serious problem in someone's life like an unsuccessful attempt. I'm sure if you spoke to people who have recovered from their suicidal tendencies, they would agree that they should not have been given an easier means to self-terminate.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 11, 2016, 09:14:51 PM
That is a "problem" worth looking into.  I would like to say it should be divorced from the subject of gun control but if you were of the opinion that "saving lives" is the goal, it would be silly to ignore suicide by guns.

Focusing entirely on gun crime and crime prevention and self defense and accident prevention would be my preference.  When someone wants to check out I think our primary concern is eliminating or minimizing harm they do to others in the process.

This is more or less my thought on the subject too.

It's not that I don't see the interpretation you're referring to, but I feel like your decision to scrutinize it so closely is part of what contributes to the overall requirement for politicians to speak blandly and say nothing. If we're going to parse between "some" and "a" as an object of interest in a president's ad libbed speech (in a live interview, I would add), I think we're actively encouraging them to say nothing at all lest they betray a thought unfavorable to some.

Actually I don't think Obama was speaking blandly or saying nothing here. In fact, he seemed to be saying more than he was saying, not less. On the surface his comments were meant to sound like a reasonable guy talking off the cuff, but in reality I wonder whether the content wasn't really dog whistles to people who think gun nuts are looney. Incidentally, I very much doubt any of it was off the cuff, as I've learned over the past while that Anderson Cooper is a premiere alley-oop persona who is brought in frequently to set the stage for narratives to be laid. He's a storyteller, if you will, and in this instance I believe his question to Obama about "are you really sure it should be called a conspiracy theory" wasn't actually him challenging Obama's position (although it was meant to appear that way) but rather was setting Obama up for an alley-oop to slam dunk the question with a combo of humor and ridicule. In short, I think the exchange was pre-scripted within certain parameters. How's that for a conspiracy theory  :D

But my main point isn't about a nefarious agenda or Obama winking at the camera, but rather that if a prominent leader of the gun control movement such as Obama is calling the other side crazy then what hope is there for real dialogue? It will just continue in the vein of each side trying to sneak changes past the other side with no understanding or agreement.

The part about me wondering whether Obama was mocking the founding is in a sense related to this because whereas America was united in opposing the 'distant authority' of England, I think that now many partisans seem to almost look back on that unity and revolutionary spirit as being some kind of fairy tale that no one takes seriously any more - almost worthy of contempt, even. It's this jaded, self-important opposition to the 'bad guys' on the other side that prevents serious work on gun control, because there is a real lack of trust. It's not stupidity - the mistrust is rooted in reality, I think.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 11, 2016, 09:23:05 PM
Obama's reply about one year left to his term was obviously an intent to deceive, bamboozle, mislead, feint, dupe the public out of their rights.  But this sort of despicable dishonesty is typical of people with power.  Look, you obtuse suit, we didn't ask if you were trying to eradicate gun rights during your term. We asked if your intent was to eradicate gun rights. If you are too much of a pussycat to answer the question just say no comment. Don't insult our intelligence.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: JoshCrow on January 11, 2016, 10:55:50 PM
But my main point isn't about a nefarious agenda or Obama winking at the camera, but rather that if a prominent leader of the gun control movement such as Obama is calling the other side crazy then what hope is there for real dialogue? It will just continue in the vein of each side trying to sneak changes past the other side with no understanding or agreement.

I think a far more nefarious thing is to police your every word until you are incapable of expressing anything other than a feigned "respectful disagreement" in the face of lunacy. This isn't a marriage, and Obama's wife didn't just ask him if she looks fat in that dress.

"My dear sir, I see and fully respect that you believe federal agents are going to break own your door and confiscate all your guns."

Nope, sorry, crazy ideas are still crazy. Call a spade a spade. I'm surprised to hear you advocate otherwise. When is the last time you can remember any politically charged issue involving millions of people being solved because both sides said "yeah, you are totally reasonable and we just disagree"?

This is to say nothing about the fact that you are expending energy on a really very oblique comment that is degrees removed from being any sort of direct indictment of people. To point to this thing reminds me of "microaggressions", and in a bad way.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 11, 2016, 11:55:20 PM
Nope, sorry, crazy ideas are still crazy. Call a spade a spade. I'm surprised to hear you advocate otherwise. When is the last time you can remember any politically charged issue involving millions of people being solved because both sides said "yeah, you are totally reasonable and we just disagree"?

This is to say nothing about the fact that you are expending energy on a really very oblique comment that is degrees removed from being any sort of direct indictment of people. To point to this thing reminds me of "microaggressions", and in a bad way.

So...should I count this as one vote in favor of partisan politics in the realm of gun control? Just because I don't expect politicians to speak to each other reasonably doesn't mean I have to like it. Rather than thinking of my comments as a microaggression against Obama, I would suggest you think of them instead as macroaggression against an absurd partisan climate where ridicule replaces debate. I count Obama's comments in the video as only being one aspect of that, and certainly not the whole story. It's not as if there's no gun lobby to deal with, after all.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 12:23:40 AM
Josh, if criminalizing any sort of gun ownership of handguns for home or personal defense purposes is not Obama's end game, them why does he dodge the question with that obfuscation about what can he do in a year?  The combination of calling the question crazy while refusing to give a plain answer, bodes very poorly. If the answer really is no, then why not just say NO, that's not where I want America to end up?

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 12, 2016, 08:35:46 AM
Obama's reply about one year left to his term was obviously an intent to deceive, bamboozle, mislead, feint, dupe the public out of their rights.  But this sort of despicable dishonesty is typical of people with power.  Look, you obtuse suit, we didn't ask if you were trying to eradicate gun rights during your term. We asked if your intent was to eradicate gun rights. If you are too much of a pussycat to answer the question just say no comment. Don't insult our intelligence.
This is the kind of comment that shows why it's futile to "defend" Obama, since there is nothing in this mini-rant worth paying attention to.  Even Obama is obtuse, it seems.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 09:15:40 AM
"Even Obama"

Oh heaven forbid that one should say that an elected politician was playing coy and obtuse in one of his public statements.  The Outright blasphemy of my allegation! Have I no respect for delicate authority worshippers?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: JoshCrow on January 12, 2016, 09:23:38 AM
Josh, if criminalizing any sort of gun ownership of handguns for home or personal defense purposes is not Obama's end game, them why does he dodge the question with that obfuscation about what can he do in a year?  The combination of calling the question crazy while refusing to give a plain answer, bodes very poorly. If the answer really is no, then why not just say NO, that's not where I want America to end up?

I'm not convinced his answer WAS obfuscation (if anything it was omission), since Obama is entering what is widely known as the lame duck phase of his presidency (one could argue he's been there for a long time already). The concept of the lame duck is the widely and popularly accepted notion that a president in their last year has very little political capital to spend to do anything major.

I agree that Obama could have followed that by saying "but just wait until Hillary gets in - she'll make major changes!". But why would he say that? You are basically asking Obama to undermine his own position in an interview! Regardless of whether he is right or wrong in your eyes, is it reasonable to expect a president to deliberately present evidence counter to their own agenda? I do not believe any president has ever been held to that standard, sir. IT would be lovely if people adopted purely objective positions and stated arguments against their own beliefs - but while we wait for that to happen, we've got the reality of politics to deal with.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: JoshCrow on January 12, 2016, 09:32:14 AM

So...should I count this as one vote in favor of partisan politics in the realm of gun control? Just because I don't expect politicians to speak to each other reasonably doesn't mean I have to like it.

You are advocating FOR a public figure to take pains to conceal what they believe in an interview. I always took you to be someone who recognized the problem with that, someone who was tired of the emptiness of their speeches which are designed to offend nobody and therefore say nothing. It is fascinating to see you take up the contrary position so quickly.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 12, 2016, 09:53:08 AM

So...should I count this as one vote in favor of partisan politics in the realm of gun control? Just because I don't expect politicians to speak to each other reasonably doesn't mean I have to like it.

You are advocating FOR a public figure to take pains to conceal what they believe in an interview. I always took you to be someone who recognized the problem with that, someone who was tired of the emptiness of their speeches which are designed to offend nobody and therefore say nothing. It is fascinating to see you take up the contrary position so quickly.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. How am I advocating for obfuscation of speech, again? What I brought up was Obama's possible insinuation that the founding was based on a crazy conspiracy theory about England, and that anyone who fears government encroachment is a looney. As far as I can tell I'm not addressing the issue of hiding what one thinks, but rather raising concern about what Obama did say. Unless your argument is that any criticism of what a politician says is automatic advocacy for politicians hiding their thoughts? I guess you could infer that, but it's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if Obama wants to convince people the government isn't coming for their guns the way to do it isn't by saying that government is your buddy that you should totally trust. It's a bad argument that will convince no one on the other side and is instead engineered to get people who already agree with him to think worse of people on the other side by subjecting them to ridicule. It's basically the opposite of establishing common ground - it's divisive to the extreme.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 10:03:24 AM
"I'm not convinced his answer WAS obfuscation (if anything it was omission), "

Ridiculous. Saying those that ask that question are crazy is not "omission."  it's comission of emperors new clothes class obfuscation.  So the one year line just plays US for Fools. 

"Do I want to take people's guns away? In the first place people that ask that are crazy people and in the second place -- oh look! A bird!"

The fact that we cannot expect him to be honest does not make his reply less obfuscatory. The fact that most other politicians do this too does not mean that it is not obfuscation. 

Bernie Sanders has shown that it is possible to advocate for gun control without treating 55% of US voters like a dangerous delusional psychotic that needs to be talked down and duped to avoid mayhem. 

I have already recognized that it's not just Obama and the left that treat the rule of law and basic fundamental rights were some sort of ticking time bomb that needs to be disarmed with "whatever it takes" levels of duplicity and usurped force. But ticking time bomb or no, obfuscation is still obfuscation.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 12, 2016, 10:15:32 AM
....since Obama is entering what is widely known as the lame duck phase of his presidency (one could argue he's been there for a long time already). The concept of the lame duck is the widely and popularly accepted notion that a president in their last year has very little political capital to spend to do anything major.
I don't find it likely that President Obama will have a "lame duck" period, that concept ties directly into Presidents' political capital to influence Congress having expired and their ability to get legislation they are willing to sign passed.  President Obama does not now, nor has he routinely, worked with Congress in the least.  In fact, I'd guess we'll see the opposite of a lame duck president because President Obama will be more free to act in autocratic ways than he has been in the past.  We'll know in a year, but I'm willing to bet President Obama will be more active this year than previously.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: JoshCrow on January 12, 2016, 11:03:40 AM
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. How am I advocating for obfuscation of speech, again? What I brought up was Obama's possible insinuation that the founding was based on a crazy conspiracy theory about England, and that anyone who fears government encroachment is a looney. As far as I can tell I'm not addressing the issue of hiding what one thinks, but rather raising concern about what Obama did say. Unless your argument is that any criticism of what a politician says is automatic advocacy for politicians hiding their thoughts? I guess you could infer that, but it's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if Obama wants to convince people the government isn't coming for their guns the way to do it isn't by saying that government is your buddy that you should totally trust. It's a bad argument that will convince no one on the other side and is instead engineered to get people who already agree with him to think worse of people on the other side by subjecting them to ridicule. It's basically the opposite of establishing common ground - it's divisive to the extreme.

You are basically saying Obama committed a microaggression by referring to "some distant authority" rather than speaking with deference to the point of view of gun culture people. Let me posit a different point of view - I'd say Obama was being downright charitable. Consider the bigger picture of his point about the founders - he was attempting to provide a reasonable portrait of an unreasonable culture by suggesting that it is "an American tradition" and that there are historical reasons for Americans loving their guns. I'd say that is an overly generous reading of current American gun culture - to say that these folks have a "historical excuse" for their enthusiasm for weaponry is, I think, a bit of hand-waving self-justification that the gun culture itself employs. In a very real sense, Obama was giving them their own phony justification. If he puts a skeptical spin on it, why should anyone blame him? I'd rather he hadn't even thrown them that bone.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: JoshCrow on January 12, 2016, 11:12:18 AM
President Obama does not now, nor has he routinely, worked with Congress in the least.

It takes two to tango.

In any case, I would posit that this is basically the future of US politics for as long as the filibuster continues to exist. I doubt it matters who is in office anymore, and there is essentially no more electoral advantage that moderation can present over extremism.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 11:14:48 AM
"I'd say Obama was being downright charitable"

Arguably "Charitable" to Timothy McVeigh by identifying the founding fathers with the extreme gun fringe.  But that's because his real goal is to put moderate second amendment advocates under erasure. Basically he's pulling an Al Wessex, lumping all his opponents into a single monolithic point of view.

This isn't the only time that the cynical authoritarian left colludes with the lunatic right to dupe the public and suppress the reasonable center.  It happens in the birth control debate as well where partial birth abortion is treated as morally indistinguishable from use of an IUD.  Calling blastocysts "frozen embryos" and so on.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 12, 2016, 11:15:31 AM
Years of stagnation then bursts of frenzied activity as one side nails down all the power at once and pushes their agenda or rolls back the gains of their opponents?

Wonderful...  :( 
Wish I could disagree.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 11:17:27 AM
President Obama does not now, nor has he routinely, worked with Congress in the least.

It takes two to tango.

That point in no way makes O 's thesis less true. Obama is likely to be more active, not less, in his last year.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: JoshCrow on January 12, 2016, 11:23:59 AM
That point in no way makes O 's thesis less true. Obama is likely to be more active, not less, in his last year.

I view this as improbable, given the limits of executive power, two opposing chambers, and given that his signature health care achievement is behind him. His chance to do big things is over. He may bark loudly enough to scare the Republican neighbors, but his cage is now closed. The rest is scaremongering - after all, he's a useful villain to have, and who ever wants to admit their their favorite enemy is now toothless and old? We'll see a few weak executive moves (like his current gun control effort) but nothing of significance. Barking, not biting.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 12, 2016, 11:29:42 AM
Consider the bigger picture of his point about the founders - he was attempting to provide a reasonable portrait of an unreasonable culture by suggesting that it is "an American tradition" and that there are historical reasons for Americans loving their guns. I'd say that is an overly generous reading of current American gun culture - to say that these folks have a "historical excuse" for their enthusiasm for weaponry is, I think, a bit of hand-waving self-justification that the gun culture itself employs.

Yes, this is a reasonable interpretation of his comment as well; I don't think the one interpretation precludes the other. Putting them together, the full message would be "Gun nuts have an historical excuse for their fear of government, which has its roots in the founding. But any further rationale for fearing government beyond that historical root is silly, since government is the good guy now." It both contextualizes fear of government as being a vestigial remnant from 1776, as well as sidelining it by suggesting that people who still think that way are living in the past. I don't think Jefferson would agree with this assessment, let's just put it that way  :P
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 11:39:30 AM
"Consider the bigger picture of his point about the founders - he was attempting to provide a reasonable portrait of an unreasonable culture by suggesting that it is "an American tradition" and that there are historical reasons for Americans loving their guns."

Well argued. While that doesn't erase my complaint about the 1 year obfuscation, it does mitigate some of my frustration with the guy. 

Goes to show Al that one can actually mount a credible defense of Obama without resorting to ENC fallacy

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 12, 2016, 11:45:39 AM
Pete given the tone of some of your criticism of the guy, it's easy to see why many people wouldn't be inclined to even attempt to defend him to you.  How someone opposes a person or position has a lot to do with the willingness of anyone to engage.  A failure to do so should not be read as an inability to provide a defense.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 12:02:57 PM
Al is always willing to engage me endlessly with respect to the use of the word "Barry".  Perhaps that too is a matter of higher importance to Al than actual gun deaths.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: JoshCrow on January 12, 2016, 12:05:27 PM
It both contextualizes fear of government as being a vestigial remnant from 1776, as well as sidelining it by suggesting that people who still think that way are living in the past. I don't think Jefferson would agree with this assessment, let's just put it that way  :P

If that is the characterization, then it is one I agree with. I would note that Jefferson lived in that past. Ammon Bundy does not. That is not to suggest that a good government cannot become tyrannical, or overstep its authority, but that the current US gov't is to "tyranny" what modern "God-is-Love" Christianity is to religion in general - it is a creature that has been largely tamed and domesticated. The gun culture's talk of tyranny (as exemplified now by Ammon Bundy) is like a person whose ancestor was once mauled by a tiger being afraid of a housecat. People running around talking about the US being tyrannical do not understand what real tyranny looks like and have no concept of degree - only a binary aversion to cat-like creatures.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 12, 2016, 12:10:35 PM
Al is always willing to engage me endlessly with respect to the use of the word "Barry".  Perhaps that too is a matter of higher importance to Al than actual gun deaths.

Got to admit it bugs me as well.  I just choose to ignore it (until now).  I'm glad AI gives you the irritated response you seem to crave when you use your pet name.  We all got to get our kicks somewhere.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 12:22:56 PM
Josh, imagine that you were part of the majority of Americans who believe that the 2ND amendment gives them the right to bear arms, but do NOT believe in that right wing Jeffersonian fable that the purpose is to overthrow a tyrannical government.

If you live in the political center, Obama has brilliantly bulldozed your position with these sweet syrupy word to the seditious far right. 

Thomas *censored*ing Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing of the Federal Bill of Rights.  He was in Paris at the time.  When you interpret the BoR through Jefferson you get monstrously stupid *censored* like Dredd Scott.  Or this institutional revolution crap.  But don't accuse O of being merciful. He's one coddling the lunatic right to *censored* over the center. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 12:30:19 PM
Al is always willing to engage me endlessly with respect to the use of the word "Barry".  Perhaps that too is a matter of higher importance to Al than actual gun deaths.

Got to admit it bugs me as well.  I just choose to ignore it (until now).  I'm glad AI gives you the irritated response you seem to crave when you use your pet name.  We all got to get our kicks somewhere.

Say what you need to say to distinguish yourself from me. :).
But under that PR, you should notice I haven't called O by his Christian name "Barry" for months..  to placate Al I have faithfully called the President by his Muslim name.  Even though I still cling to the theory that the president is the most Christian president in office since Carter.  Not that it's saying much to be more Christian that Reagan Bush or Clinton :)
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 12, 2016, 12:35:21 PM
His "Christian" name?  Was he baptized with it or something?  I got to admit, more than being disrespectful, I just don't get the nickname at all.  How you get from Barack to Barry just confuses me.  It's like Bill from William.  If you hate your "full name" and want to shorten it to... whatever so be it.  But shortening it for someone else, when it doesn't make sense?  That just bugs me for no good reason I suppose.  :P
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 12, 2016, 12:40:24 PM
The gun culture's talk of tyranny (as exemplified now by Ammon Bundy) is like a person whose ancestor was once mauled by a tiger being afraid of a housecat. People running around talking about the US being tyrannical do not understand what real tyranny looks like and have no concept of degree - only a binary aversion to cat-like creatures.

That's easy to say if you're an American. Just like the colonial empires did, America exports its violence. The British learned that it's better to pillage foreigners than your own people, since you need a positive labor base and stability back home. But even for Americans and their rights, the question isn't a binary one of "tyranny versus no tyranny." The argument goes that government by its very nature always tends towards tyranny or bureaucracy, and that this must be continuously opposed. To suppose that because a dead man said so makes it untrue is peculiar.

So what does real tyranny look like? Is it foot soldiers running down the streets gunning down dissidents? Is it more like 1984 where there is apparently very little local crime or violence but perpetual violence 'somewhere else' along with regimented thinking? Or is it more like Brave New World where life is a giant party, as least so long as you're part of the privileged class, and where otherwise social mobility is non-existent and divisive ideas have been washed away? The answer is yes. Slavery can look like many different things, some of them not altogether unpleasant. The Matrix covered this angle quite sufficiently, where slavery doesn't have to mean whips and suffering - that is, unless you oppose the system. I think it's best not to focus only on antiquated notions of tyranny when discussing how to prevent tyranny going forward, although they're best not forgotten either. But the way of the future for tyranny is in the unseen variety, where it doesn't feel like that at all and where you might even like it. Consider for instance streamlining of opinion and narrative: right now American politics has been divided into tight partisan camps, and even people who don't subscribe to one or the other as stated are obliged to nevertheless pick one for fear the other will win. Thus the continuum of ideas has been narrowed down to two, and those two are at times scarcely distinguishable from each other. Do most people feel like their minds are being controlled or manipulated? Probably not, but they are. This is a relatively new method and isn't what we historically think of as being regimented thought in the sense of thought control from religion, for instance.

One can nevertheless still look at older indications of authoritarian force by government that still go on, one of which is (and always has been) tight control of the currency. One of the major issues for the colonies, from what I've read, was the inability to mint their own coin and having to use English currency under English authority. Just like America has done since Bretton Woods, the British Empire tightly enforced the use of their currency by their colonies to ensure a system of trade in pounds sterling. Any attempt at minting one's own currency would be equivalent to revolution in itself. Similarly, after America won the right after WWII to become the world's trade currency (thus empowering the Fed and the American banks enormously to control international commerce) it fought hard over the years to maintain this system and still does. One element of this control is what we call "petro-dollars" which is nothing more than currency dominion through oil transactions where American currency ends up being funnels to Arabia and then inevitably back to America. Now, maintaining an accepted and stable currency is functionally effective and so on the "it works" level this is ok. But when it's enforced at the point of a gun it means that at the end of the day powerful nations tend towards behaving as the British Empire did; using cheap labor in developing countries (quasi-colonies), controlling and enforcing the currency, maintaining a military presence...everywhere, and disarming one's citizens to prevent revolt. Whether this last point is really anyone's agenda is a separate discussion, but these are standard tools of empire.

The major difference, though, between America and the British Empire is in their quite different constitutions, and therein lies the battle many Americans feels is going on between upholding the constitution versus just bending over and becoming the new British Empire. It is not entirely surprising that someone who endorses American hegemony as it stands now would cast aspersions on the spirit of the revolution against the British. After all, what did they do that was so bad? They just wanted to control the currency and levy taxes. That's perfectly reasonable, right? Then what was the revolution for?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 12:48:03 PM
"How you get from Barack to Barry just confuses me."

 I didn't come up with it. I saw it from Chris Matthews, "Give 'em hell Barry." And he meant it as a compliment. 

If you are sick of agreeing with me on all substantive issues and feel the need to nitpick over a word to seem different, then bounce an old thread where I actually called him Barry.

I say some respectful things about Obama and some disrespectful things.  "Barry" is neither. 

As for derivation of nickname... Do you know the nickname for Jesus in Spanish?  "Chewy". I kid you not.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 12, 2016, 12:51:05 PM
You brought it up, not me.  But learning that Chewbacca may be a Jesus figure was worth it.  This requires some reevaluation of one of my favorite series of movies...

And I've stated before I give people a harder time the closer they are to my political opinions.  Wouldn't want to get lazy bashing the obviously wrong all the time opposition.  :P
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 01:02:12 PM
"That's easy to say if you're an American. Just like the colonial empires did, America exports its violence. The British learned that it's better to pillage foreigners"

Yes and no. It's only very late in the game that British lord lings and their minions even started seeing their fellow Brits as "their people." A jury of one's peers meant a jury of one's social standing. Google  Peterloo if you imagine Tyranny did not exist in England during or after the American Revolution.

Loss of guns would not in itself lead to Tyranny, but if we allow the government to abridge the bill of rights without a legitimate amendment, only a fool or liar would argue that the same process would not be used to curtail other fundamental rights.  Guns don't stop tyranny. The Constitution stops tyranny. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 01:09:17 PM
You brought it up, not me.  But learning that Chewbacca may be a Jesus figure was worth it.  This requires some reevaluation of one of my favorite series of movies...

:) Jesus (pronounced in Spanish as "Hey Zeus") is a common name in Spanish.  But if you referred to Jesus Christ as Chewy, a Spanish priest would probably go after you lik Al did me over calling the Pres Barry.  Nothing wrong with anglicising Barry as a nickname from Barack; the offense lies in taking the name of the One in vain.

And I've stated before I give people a harder time the closer they are to my political opinions.  Wouldn't want to get lazy bashing the obviously wrong all the time opposition.  :P

Exactly. No hard feelings. I respect that.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: JoshCrow on January 12, 2016, 01:18:29 PM
Just like the colonial empires did, America exports its violence. The British learned that it's better to pillage foreigners than your own people, since you need a positive labor base and stability back home.

I would note that 'tyranny' describes a relationship between a government and its governed population - and is not to be confused with foreign policy concepts.

Quote
But even for Americans and their rights, the question isn't a binary one of "tyranny versus no tyranny." The argument goes that government by its very nature always tends towards tyranny or bureaucracy, and that this must be continuously opposed.

Interesting of you to slip "bureaucracy" in there. Can you fight that with guns? We are, after all, discussing the second amendment. More on that point below, but I would note that the "by its very nature" part is, I think, wrong - or at least is ruling out the possibility of a firm governance with liberty as a core value. I think it is false to rule out that possibility.

Quote
To suppose that because a dead man said so makes it untrue is peculiar.

When you lean on a historical figure's viewpoint, you are subject to the differences between that person's time and ours. Some things don't change, but others do. If we're lucky, people's viewpoints absorb new information without forgetting the lessons of the past. Dead people, however, don't absorb new developments very well.

Quote
So what does real tyranny look like? Is it foot soldiers running down the streets gunning down dissidents? Is it more like 1984 where there is apparently very little local crime or violence but perpetual violence 'somewhere else' along with regimented thinking? Or is it more like Brave New World where life is a giant party, as least so long as you're part of the privileged class, and where otherwise social mobility is non-existent and divisive ideas have been washed away? The answer is yes. Slavery can look like many different things, some of them not altogether unpleasant. The Matrix covered this angle quite sufficiently, where slavery doesn't have to mean whips and suffering - that is, unless you oppose the system. I think it's best not to focus only on antiquated notions of tyranny when discussing how to prevent tyranny going forward, although they're best not forgotten either.

This is about the 2nd amendment and gun culture. Which tyranny scenario above is relevant? I would argue "only those that present something to shoot at". Other forms of tyranny are fun to discuss but not really relevant here.

Quote
But the way of the future for tyranny is in the unseen variety, where it doesn't feel like that at all and where you might even like it. Consider for instance streamlining of opinion and narrative: right now American politics has been divided into tight partisan camps, and even people who don't subscribe to one or the other as stated are obliged to nevertheless pick one for fear the other will win. Thus the continuum of ideas has been narrowed down to two, and those two are at times scarcely distinguishable from each other. Do most people feel like their minds are being controlled or manipulated? Probably not, but they are. This is a relatively new method and isn't what we historically think of as being regimented thought in the sense of thought control from religion, for instance.


This is indeed a problem, but you can't shoot it, and I wouldn't call it "tyranny" of the kind Jefferson spoke. It is a major digression in our topic.

Quote
It is not entirely surprising that someone who endorses American hegemony as it stands now would cast aspersions on the spirit of the revolution against the British. After all, what did they do that was so bad? They just wanted to control the currency and levy taxes. That's perfectly reasonable, right? Then what was the revolution for?

Had you lived then, do you think you would have supported the revolution? If so - why? I would invite you to answer your own questions and draw a compelling modern parallel - if you can. I don't think the present and past are as similar as you seem to be implying.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 12, 2016, 01:45:49 PM
I think police brutality is the type of relevant tyranny today.  When the cost of abusing power is potentially death rather than suspension without pay or just more paperwork, are we sure being armed doesn't prevent tyranny? 

That said, if a cop wanted to whip my ass for kicks, he could pull me over, I must announce I am armed to stay in good legal standing for retaining my CPL.  He can then disarm me, then choose to whip my ass...  So does it really prevent anything?  Probably not.

While one can argue how bad it COULD get if we were totally helpless and disarmed when facing our government the truth is we are already at such a ridiculous disadvantage as to make the point purely academic. (IMO anyway)

Hell if I saw someone holding a uniformed officer at gun point, without knowing anything about what lead up to that point, I would still endeavor to aid the officer...  Programmed by the man and the man doesn't even sign my pay checks!

For me, gun ownership, if it relates to the founding of this country at all, is the ideal that we determine our own fates.  That we don't count on others to protect us, we do so ourselves and as a community.  Law enforcement and "the government" is an extension of our community not a threatening outside influence.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 01:49:56 PM
"
Interesting of you to slip "bureaucracy" in there. Can you fight that with guns? We are, after all, discussing the second amendment."

I already addressed that, Josh, and you did not reply.

Again:
Loss of guns would not in itself lead to Tyranny, but if we allow the government to abridge the bill of rights without a legitimate amendment, only a fool or liar would argue that the same process would not be used to curtail other fundamental rights.  Guns don't stop tyranny. The Constitution stops tyranny.

Why do you insist, Josh, thatcher second amendment's validity hinges on the people's need to overthrow the government?  Iirc no one on the board has taken that position.  Ammo Bundy ain't here.  He's in some isolated corner of Oregon.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 12, 2016, 01:58:39 PM
Guns don't stop tyranny. The Constitution stops tyranny.
Based on what?  You may have a better understanding of history than I do.  When in history were arms limited to an elite or ruling class of a country and tyranny was not the result?

The Constitution means nothing if the government doesn't respect the citizenry.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: JoshCrow on January 12, 2016, 01:59:37 PM
Loss of guns would not in itself lead to Tyranny, but if we allow the government to abridge the bill of rights without a legitimate amendment, only a fool or liar would argue that the same process would not be used to curtail other fundamental rights.  Guns don't stop tyranny. The Constitution stops tyranny.

"if we allow" and "The Constitution stops tyranny" are both statements I would call moot without the threat of force to back them up. After all, a Constitution that is not enforced BY force is merely ink on a page.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 12, 2016, 03:00:39 PM
I would note that 'tyranny' describes a relationship between a government and its governed population - and is not to be confused with foreign policy concepts.

Yes. I was expressing that a lack of literal violence against the American people isn't evidence of a lack of tyranny, despite the common low-brow interpretation of tyranny as being a brutal dictator who guns down opposition. I listed foreign policy involving violence as a common sign of tyranny, but it is not necessarily tyranny in and of itself, no.

Quote
Interesting of you to slip "bureaucracy" in there. Can you fight that with guns? We are, after all, discussing the second amendment. More on that point below, but I would note that the "by its very nature" part is, I think, wrong - or at least is ruling out the possibility of a firm governance with liberty as a core value. I think it is false to rule out that possibility.

As others have mentioned, not every evil is fought with a gun. Ideally few are, in fact. As with above, an entrenched and entitled bureaucracy is often a sign of tyranny, but it can also be a tyranny unto itself insofar as it often establishes de facto rule of law that cannot be traced back to any individual who will take responsibility for it. Another name for it is a system absent a leader who can be held responsible for it. Does this ring a bell in American politics now? Most problems in the U.S. now aren't anyone's tangible fault or responsibility even though in some vague sense the Congress or the President can be blamed for most anything.

Quote
When you lean on a historical figure's viewpoint, you are subject to the differences between that person's time and ours. Some things don't change, but others do. If we're lucky, people's viewpoints absorb new information without forgetting the lessons of the past. Dead people, however, don't absorb new developments very well.

True. So tell me, do we have new information about human nature as it pertains to politics that was unavailable to the Founders? I'll grant you we have new information, but is it in the sphere of political philosophy, and does this information invalidate what was known in the late 1700's? The one area where I think you're surely right, though, is in the area of technology and how that affects government operation. I would say, however, that in this era of technology we should have more reasons to fear government, not less. The more tools and powers it has (officially or unofficially) the more ways in which people lose control of their lives.

Quote
Quote
So what does real tyranny look like? Is it foot soldiers running down the streets gunning down dissidents? Is it more like 1984 where there is apparently very little local crime or violence but perpetual violence 'somewhere else' along with regimented thinking? Or is it more like Brave New World where life is a giant party, as least so long as you're part of the privileged class, and where otherwise social mobility is non-existent and divisive ideas have been washed away? The answer is yes. Slavery can look like many different things, some of them not altogether unpleasant. The Matrix covered this angle quite sufficiently, where slavery doesn't have to mean whips and suffering - that is, unless you oppose the system. I think it's best not to focus only on antiquated notions of tyranny when discussing how to prevent tyranny going forward, although they're best not forgotten either.

This is about the 2nd amendment and gun culture. Which tyranny scenario above is relevant? I would argue "only those that present something to shoot at". Other forms of tyranny are fun to discuss but not really relevant here.

We're talking about gun culture but also more broadly about the constitution and worrying about government encroachment. Not every problem is one to shoot at, and the 2nd Amendment isn't only about literally opposing government with arms. Note that the intent in the founding was for there to never be a permanent standing army, and the 2nd plays directly into this fact. Since that reality has changed it does, indeed, alter the context of the 2nd to an extent, but the question in my mind isn't whether or not to ignore it because it's a bit out of date, but rather whether or not the constitution matters. All forms of tyranny are relevant when discussing whether or not the constitution should be ignored rather than changed. I'm all for the idea of drafting new Amendments, but not for ignoring previous ones. The issue here is whether government should be trusted innately or whether it should be doubted innately but certain people in government perhaps respected (hopefully). The gun culture issue is a current topic on this general subject.

Quote
Quote
But the way of the future for tyranny is in the unseen variety, where it doesn't feel like that at all and where you might even like it. Consider for instance streamlining of opinion and narrative: right now American politics has been divided into tight partisan camps, and even people who don't subscribe to one or the other as stated are obliged to nevertheless pick one for fear the other will win. Thus the continuum of ideas has been narrowed down to two, and those two are at times scarcely distinguishable from each other. Do most people feel like their minds are being controlled or manipulated? Probably not, but they are. This is a relatively new method and isn't what we historically think of as being regimented thought in the sense of thought control from religion, for instance.


This is indeed a problem, but you can't shoot it, and I wouldn't call it "tyranny" of the kind Jefferson spoke. It is a major digression in our topic.

Jefferson spoke about various kinds of tyranny. For instance he cited the greatest danger to American liberty not as being a military dictatorship taking over but rather as a private interest acquiring power over the currency. You can go quite deep inspecting exactly what that means and how far it goes, but that sort of tyranny isn't anything to do with people shooting guns at each other on the streets. It is no digression, believe me. People having their basic freedoms challenged has everything to do with the 2nd right now, just as it has to do with NSA surveillance and other issues of the day. In my view when Sanders discusses Wall Street reform and the NRA discusses executive overreach in a way I think they're both addressing the same basic concern, which is that large powerful forces always try to take more power for themselves and they have to be kept at bay on a regular basis.

Quote
Had you lived then, do you think you would have supported the revolution? If so - why? I would invite you to answer your own questions and draw a compelling modern parallel - if you can. I don't think the present and past are as similar as you seem to be implying.

I honestly don't know enough to say. When there's a lot to gain relative to what someone has to lose it's much easier to think of fighting against authority. That being said I'm not actually drawing a direct parallel between the revolutionary Americans vs. the Crown and the current Americans and the federal government. The situations are not equivalent or even similar in many respects. What is common, though, is the understand that any government will tend towards encroachment if given the chance. The best way to prevent that is for it to not have the tools to do that, of course, but in the case of America the partnership between government and private interests has always kept the door open for this to get worse on a regular basis. I hope I see the day when that door is closed and more trust can exist between the people and its government.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 03:10:50 PM
Loss of guns would not in itself lead to Tyranny, but if we allow the government to abridge the bill of rights without a legitimate amendment, only a fool or liar would argue that the same process would not be used to curtail other fundamental rights.  Guns don't stop tyranny. The Constitution stops tyranny.

"if we allow" and "The Constitution stops tyranny" are both statements I would call moot without the threat of force to back them up. After all, a Constitution that is not enforced BY force is merely ink on a page.

So you see modern Japan as a Tyranny?  You think Ammo Bundy really is securing our freedoms? You think Americans with their handguns could stand and fight the modern US Army?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 03:27:56 PM
"Not every problem is one to shoot at, and the 2nd Amendment isn't only about literally opposing government with arms. Note that the intent in the founding was for there to never be a permanent standing army, and the 2nd plays directly into this fact. Since that reality has changed it does, indeed, alter the context of the 2nd to an extent, but the question in my mind isn't whether or not to ignore it because it's a bit out of date, but rather whether or not the constitution matters. All forms of tyranny are relevant when discussing whether or not the constitution should be ignored rather than changed"

Correct. A government that just ignores any part of the constitution, becomes Tyrannical. If the constitution has a defect (eg slavery) then amend it.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 12, 2016, 03:45:43 PM
Quote
You think Americans with their handguns could stand and fight the modern US Army?
So how would this play out?  Protest (possibly violent but not necessarily) that are disruptive to the economy or the operation of the government take place.  Local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to apply force to stop it.  National guard is considered but the armed forces are through some series of events deemed a more expedient or prudent response.

Scenario A has the citizens armed.  Scenario B takes place long enough after a gun banning that most have disarmed and those who didn't are not likely hid them at home rather than carry them on their person.

Scenario B asks the enlisted to intimidate people, use some muscle or the THREAT of weapon use to disperse a crowd or apprehend people.  Heck even an extreme case of shooting a violent protester would be enough to scatter an unarmed crowd.  They may find it distasteful but if they reason their C.O. has given a "lawful" order to do this they are (IMO) likely to comply. 

Scenario A asks the enlisted to use tactics almost certain to spark violence and gunfire.  They will then be forced with treating the entire crowd as combatants even though it's almost certainly only a fraction of them are both armed and prepared to instigate hostility or even resist with guns.  So now they must decide.  Do they follow the orders "knowing" it will result in a loss of life?  That's a lot different than breaking up an unarmed protest and having a worst case scenario of MAYBE having to shoot someone who "crosses the line".

I'm not one for the "to resist our government's oppression" argument for firearms but you can't ague against that opinion with a simple "do you really think you could win?" question.  Well at least until we are an all drone force where a small number of operators are projecting the power and troop moral becomes irreverent.

We would devolve into a civil war and fractured military long before we had an "army vs. citizens" conflict.  Well unless we unleash Skynet first.  :P
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 03:56:36 PM
Quote
You think Americans with their handguns could stand and fight the modern US Army?
So how would this play out?  Protest (possibly violent but not necessarily) that are disruptive to the economy or the operation of the government take place.  Local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to apply force to stop it.  National guard is considered but the armed forces are through some series of events deemed a more expedient or prudent response.

Scenario A has the citizens armed.  Scenario B takes place long enough after a gun banning that most have disarmed and those who didn't are not likely hid them at home rather than carry them on their person.

Scenario B asks the enlisted to intimidate people, use some muscle or the THREAT of weapon use to disperse a crowd or apprehend people.  Heck even an extreme case of shooting a violent protester would be enough to scatter an unarmed crowd.  They may find it distasteful but if they reason their C.O. has given a "lawful" order to do this they are (IMO) likely to comply. 

Scenario A asks the enlisted to use tactics almost certain to spark violence and gunfire.  They will then be forced with treating the entire crowd as combatants even though it's almost certainly only a fraction of them are both armed and prepared to instigate hostility or even resist with guns.  So now they must decide.  Do they follow the orders "knowing" it will result in a loss of life?  That's a lot different than breaking up an unarmed protest and having a worst case scenario of MAYBE having to shoot someone who "crosses the line".

I'm not one for the "to resist our government's oppression" argument for firearms but you can't ague against that opinion with a simple "do you really think you could win?" question.  Well at least until we are an all drone force where a small number of operators are projecting the power and troop moral becomes irreverent.

We would devolve into a civil war and fractured military long before we had an "army vs. citizens" conflict.  Well unless we unleash Skynet first.  :P

What you describe is the US government acting with checks and balances. That doesn't address the argument whether family guns could check a tyrrany.   The Warsaw rebellion didn't go so well, IIRC.

I think the scenario the 2ND amendment was written for is not too unlike the situation of farmers near the Mexico border with encroaching cartels. Bandits and savages.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 12, 2016, 04:01:08 PM
So you see modern Japan as a Tyranny?
I see them as a subject nation, wholly dependent on others for their security.
Quote
You think Ammo Bundy really is securing our freedoms?
The media has been really vague about the demands he's making.  When I've investigated similar vagueness in the past, I've been surprised by how clear the actual positions of involved were.  At this point though, I have no idea.
Quote
You think Americans with their handguns could stand and fight the modern US Army?
Did you think this through at all?  Cause the answer is unreservedly yes.  The only way it's even a question is if you pretend that it would be some kind of ancient Red Coats versus colonists line fight with muskets.  The US army has trouble with occupying a country the size of Iraq and in urban fighting.  The US is so much larger than Iraq, virtually all bases are exposed to the populace, meaning garrisoning requirements are through the roof, not to mention the need to protect strategic resources like farms, factories, depots and supply lines.  That's before you consider the exposure of their family members.  And not considering the risk of defection, and non-replenishment of soldiers unless they have a stable training pipeline.  Just straight numbers the military is outnumbered by about one hundred to one in fighting age personnel.  Military training is not uncommon in the civilian population, nor are very high level technical skills.

How effectively can a 100 soldier garrison control a town of 10,000?  Protect it's own equipment?

If there were an actual civil war the side the military supported would have an advantage, but they would be hopeless in a battle with the citizens as a whole.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 04:21:39 PM
"The US army has trouble with occupying a country the size of Iraq and in urban fighting."

Absurd analogy because our root question assumes the government acting tyranically. Better analogy would be French Resistance VA Nazi's.

That's in a situation where
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Gaoics79 on January 12, 2016, 07:46:58 PM
Quote
Yes, it's a conspiracy. His motives are completely hidden but we know what's in his heart anyway.

This comment was a bit farther back but I wanted to address it.

Obama's an educated urban liberal. I don't say that in a pejorative sense, but simply say it as a fact.

We have already seen in every developed country where educated liberals just like Obama have taken gun control, and it's in a direction that the vast majority of gun owners in America would find objectionable. That's just a fact.

Asking me how I know that Obama wants to severely restrict or outright ban many guns like it's some insane conspiracy theory is as disingenuous as asking me how I knew with 95% certainty that Obama was lying when he said he favoured the traditional definition of marriage a few years back. It's just not rocket science. It's kind of obvious. If it's not obvious to you, you're kind of dull I hate to tell you.

Now maybe you favour a legal environment like in Canada which is highly hostile to gun ownership. That would make your views consistent with most educated urban liberals like Obama. That's fine. But let's be honest with ourselves, shall we?

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: JoshCrow on January 12, 2016, 08:40:59 PM
Jason, just two notes:
1. "Obama's a liberal, and liberals believe X" is a tiresome bore of a statement. None of the usual political labels are quite as significant as that, and people are complicated. Take it from me - I am now regularly called "conservative" and "liberal", to my amusement each time. I'm not saying you're wrong about Obama, but I am just tired of that line of argument.

2. I would note that a majority of gun owners in America (and about 90% of the general population) support background checks, which is a key element of what is being discussed. Yes, again, this is not necessarily "what's in his heart", but again it's not as clean as you are making it appear to be. Many, if not most, gun owners support reasonable gun control measures.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 12, 2016, 09:41:20 PM
Al is always willing to engage me endlessly with respect to the use of the word "Barry".  Perhaps that too is a matter of higher importance to Al than actual gun deaths.
What DW said.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 12, 2016, 10:26:31 PM
"The media has been really vague about the demands he's making.  When I've investigated similar vagueness in the past, I've been surprised by how clear the actual positions of involved were.  At this point though, I have no idea"

Not hard to find. He's demanding that two ranchers be released from their 5 year prison terms for "Arson." A very harsh sentence given that the illegal act was unintentional, a fire started for legit purposes on the rancher's own land.

Quite frankly, I would be sympathetic to their armed but remote protest if they had not tried to make scriptural justification.  Guns and scripture, like guns and alcohol, make me uncomfortable.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 12, 2016, 10:38:56 PM
Wasn't this whole thing plan B?  Haven't been following close but I thought the ranchers declined their assistance.  Then the locals (the ones the feds are unjustly stealing land from) asked them to take a hike as well. 

Theses guys seem to be (or are being framed as?) a group trying to make a scene / provoke a confrontation and any excuse will do; as long as uncle Sam is the bad guy.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 13, 2016, 07:24:44 AM
Quote
Quite frankly, I would be sympathetic to their armed but remote protest if they had not tried to make scriptural justification.  Guns and scripture, like guns and alcohol, make me uncomfortable.
What will it take for Christians to recognize the strain of extremism in their own ranks?  It's time for the BLM to move in and arrest them. 
Quote
Not hard to find. He's demanding that two ranchers be released from their 5 year prison terms for "Arson."
That's only the proximate cause, more accurately their excuse and insincere justification --- reminds me of invading Iraq to destroy their WMD.  They also want the government to relinquish control and abolish regulations they enforce over federal lands.  They have renamed the property, cut down fences, illegally accessed files on the computers in the office, and taken (aka stolen) the government vehicles.  This is usurpation and theft at a minimum, and if a shot is fired that injures anyone an insurrection.  As Pete points out, all done in the name of their religion.

FWIW, this (http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/2016/01/06/hammonds-arson-case-malheur-occupation/78372334/) is what the government claims the Hammond's did, so they're not victims of government overreach, even if the sentences seem harsh:
Quote
"The Hammonds also have ignited uncontrolled fires under cover of naturally occuring dry lightning storms which occur on the western slopes of the Steens Mountain in late summers," then-United States Attorney Dwight C. Holton wrote in the indictment. "For more than twenty years, Hammond family members have been responsible for multiple fires in the Steens Mountain area."

A jury convicted the pair of starting the 2001 Hardie-Hammond Fire that burned 139 acres of BLM land. Steven Hammond was also convicted of intentionally starting the 2006 Lower Bridge Creek Fire.
...
Supporters of the two men maintain the Hammonds started fires to destroy invasive species and protect their property by removing wildfire fuels, and that flames spread to public lands inadvertently.

But witnesses in the trial told a different story. The jury heard from three witnesses who were hunting in 2001 when they saw the Hammonds shoot over their heads to illegally slaughter a herd of deer, according to court documents. A short time later, the hunters testified, they had to abandon their camp because of a fire burning in the area.

A teenage relative of the Hammonds also testified during the trial that Steven Hammond gave him a box of matches and told him to drop lit matches on the ground to "light up the whole county on fire," Williams wrote.

Williams says photographs and testimony from the hunting guide proved the fires were set hours before Steven Hammond called the BLM to report he was about to conduct a burn of invasive species in the area.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 13, 2016, 09:47:54 AM
Quote
Quite frankly, I would be sympathetic to their armed but remote protest if they had not tried to make scriptural justification.  Guns and scripture, like guns and alcohol, make me uncomfortable.
What will it take for Christians to recognize the strain of extremism in their own ranks?  It's time for the BLM to move in and arrest them. 
Quote
Not hard to find. He's demanding that two ranchers be released from their 5 year prison terms for "Arson."
That's only the proximate cause, more accurately their excuse and insincere justification --- reminds me of invading Iraq to destroy their WMD.  They also want the government to relinquish control and abolish regulations they enforce over federal lands.  They have renamed the property, cut down fences, illegally accessed files on the computers in the office, and taken (aka stolen) the government vehicles.  This is usurpation and theft at a minimum, and if a shot is fired that injures anyone an insurrection.  As Pete points out, all done in the name of their religion.

FWIW, this (http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/2016/01/06/hammonds-arson-case-malheur-occupation/78372334/) is what the government claims the Hammond's did, so they're not victims of government overreach, even if the sentences seem harsh:

Please stop playing stupid, Al.

I already did recognize that they are religious extremists in spite of you repeatedly pretending I had said otherwise.

I sympathize with them because as you have conceded, the sentence of five years in prison is harsh.

Also, their generations of family business has been destroyed by a sudden change in the law. 

But you are simply being dishonest when you cast me as being sympathetic to them because of their religion.  Their citing religious scripture while waving around guns is precisely what most alienates me from their cause.

Unfortunately Al never has been able to deal with me except as his vicious little stereotype of Christians.
 
Here again, Al, is an example of how you hate us more than you fear ISIS.  For all their illiterate religious extremism, the Bunnies have staged their protest in an isolated place where the only persons likely to get hurt are them and whatever police are unlucky enough to follow your strikingly stupid bloodthirsty idea to storm their little Masada.

Anyone with more brains than gallstones realizes the smart thing to do is cut their power, let winter do their work, then arrest them for trespassing when they leave.

I'm shocked that you are so eager for unnecessary bloodshed to give weight to the false equivalency you are always trying to draw between Christianity and violent Islamism.  Please stop using this forum to incite mass shootings.

Oh, and I did not say that these brothers did anything "in the name of God.". I said they are religious extremists who misquote scripture for their purposes, just as you, Al Bundy Wessex, misquote me for your purposes.

As you see, DW, Al's the master baiter here.
[/quote]
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 13, 2016, 09:50:25 AM
Wasn't this whole thing plan B?  Haven't been following close but I thought the ranchers declined their assistance.  Then the locals (the ones the feds are unjustly stealing land from) asked them to take a hike as well. 

Theses guys seem to be (or are being framed as?) a group trying to make a scene / provoke a confrontation and any excuse will do; as long as uncle Sam is the bad guy.

What you describe is my understanding as well. I think they want a confrontation with the feds.  Al keeps pretending I denied they are religious fanatics, but I have said they are. They seem to be seeking martyrdom.  But fortunately this specific band of fanatics seem to be taking serious the Christian adage against shedding innocent blood. No hostages. Remote location.
And Al was just drooling over the prospect of giving them the bloody death that they seek.  Just one more example of the cynical nihilistic left collaborating with the lunatic right.

(Some dishonest antichristian jackass will no doubt start beating that I claimed that Christians never take innocent life.  But that's not what I said.  I said this Ammon Bundy group seems to have taken care not to endanger innocents.)

The Hammond group seems to have endangered innocent life by carelessly setting those fires. No idea if they cited Christian scripture, so don't know how that fits into Al Wessex' tedious and tireless vendetta against Christians.


Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 13, 2016, 10:17:21 AM
This is a group of white armed men who are going largely unopposed and facing no use of force for doing something far more inflammatory than non-white, unarmed people have have had the use of force justified against them.  (ignoring how shakily or wrongly justified)  Toss in the armed people using religious justifications and it's no big secret that if the holy book was a different one it wouldn't matter how remote that location was.  There would be a tactical team picking them off in a matter of hours not days.

That is a HUGE issue symbolically even if it is a tiny blip as a threat to innocent lives.  It forces into the spotlight so many hypocrisies that it makes people deeply unsettled. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 13, 2016, 10:31:31 AM
This is a group of white armed men who are going largely unopposed and facing no use of force for doing something far more inflammatory than non-white, unarmed people have have had the use of force justified against them.  (ignoring how shakily or wrongly justified)  Toss in the armed people using religious justifications and it's no big secret that if the holy book was a different one it wouldn't matter how remote that location was.  There would be a tactical team picking them off in a matter of hours not days.

That is a HUGE issue symbolically even if it is a tiny blip as a threat to innocent lives.  It forces into the spotlight so many hypocrisies that it makes people deeply unsettled.

Wait, are you saying it's a double standard because if it was Muslim radicals they've have been taken out by now? I think we should remember that radicalized Muslims have as their MO that infidels should die, and so if a group of them were to have taken over a government compound it would be assumed they're terrorists with the goal of killing Americans. Here even if you want to paint the Bundys as terrorists it doesn't mean their agenda is that of killing innocent Americans, and so going in with a tactical team to take them out with make little sense. Based on their comments, even if nutty, they are radical libertarians, and if so that means killing innocent people is against their creed. Pretty hard to compare that with Islamic radicals, wouldn't you say? The one touchy point, though, is that they might not consider government agents to be innocent.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 13, 2016, 10:43:37 AM
I'm in no way advocating violence against them.  I'm with Pete that a simple supply blockade or cutting power and waiting them out is the best plan.  Inconveniencing a few snowshoe hike or cross country skiing aficionados seems like a small price to pay to avoid violence. 

My point is that an unarmed protest in an urban setting is more likely to face a use of force than an armed protest in a rural one.  That sends a dangerous message.

And yes there is a double standard.  I don't even think it's "wrong" there is a double standard for some of the reasons you list.  A lot of people however are made very uncomfortable when faced with double standards like that.  While prudent in many eyes it DOES fly in the face of our inward facing propaganda. 

I don't worry about this group who are on what amounts to a camp-out.  I worry about the impact it has on the wider public when they make us face our own hypocrisy.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 13, 2016, 12:12:45 PM
I don't understand you, DW. At one point you seem to understand that the reason they aren't being taken out is that they are not endangering anyone.  But in other paragraphs you are out in Wessex land claiming that this is an issue of racist and religious hypocrisy.

If this crazy armed protest in the wilderness by honkies reveals hypocrisy, it"s the hypocrisy of social justice nutcases asking for affirmative atrocities.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 13, 2016, 12:16:48 PM
"My point is that an unarmed protest in an urban setting is more likely to face a use of force than an armed protest in a rural one.  That sends a dangerous message."

What the lefty press lies about the incident sends a dangerous message.  Honest intelligent people should grasp that guns can't kill people in absence of actual people. That's not hypocrisy. That's common *censored*ing sense.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 13, 2016, 12:36:37 PM
Let's say you are an anti-gun liberal.  You are appalled at protests against police brutality being branded unfairly (or ruined by a few outliers) as riots and met with sometimes harsh opposition.

Suddenly there is an armed occupation of federal land by a bunch of non-minority people.  They are treated with caution if not respect.  Suddenly you are confronted with a problem.  You have what COULD be proof that being armed DOES prevent mistreatment and DOES get you the attention you may want without instantly devolving into horrific bloodshed.  That flies in the face of your ideals.

That these "nut job religious zealots" may be pointing out a truth that people want desperately to reject IS important.  It may cause people to do seemingly irrational things like asking for the issue to be forced and risk violence just to resolve it quickly.  It may cause people to consider that when respect fails to protect you that the ability to threaten may be almost as useful. 

This would loose people to your (the anti-gun, peaceful protest liberal) ideals and potentially spark violence or give others the excuse to use violence on the larger group.  This is terrifying and all because some jackasses are camping out where they shouldn't be and antagonizing the feds for publicity? 

I'm not saying we should take a "wait and see" approach when dealing with groups who's stated goals is the death of innocent American's .  I'm not saying we should rush in and kill all these occupiers because they dared to mix guns and religion.

I'm saying that one of the (as I see it) ugliest arguments for the need to have guns is to protect you from our law enforcement or federal government is NOT as nuts as we would like to think.  That a group who the overwhelming majority thinks are misguided or dangerous criminals are "teaching us" that ugliness about ourselves... well it sucks.

Oh and if they said that they were claiming this as a beachhead for their own American caliphate because Allah told them to... they'd already be dead.  It wouldn't matter if there was nobody out there for them to hurt Pete.  (and I'd be just fine with that)

Pretending we don't have double standards has as much a corrupting effect on our country as the double standards we acknowledge. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 13, 2016, 12:38:57 PM
Quote
What the lefty press lies about the incident sends a dangerous message.
Where do you see that and what are they saying?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 13, 2016, 01:36:39 PM
Let's say you are an anti-gun liberal.  You are appalled at protests against police brutality being branded unfairly (or ruined by a few outliers) as riots and met with sometimes harsh opposition.

Suddenly there is an armed occupation of federal land by a bunch of non-minority people.  They are treated with caution if not respect.  Suddenly you are confronted with a problem.  You have what COULD be proof that being armed DOES prevent mistreatment and DOES get you the attention you may want without instantly devolving into horrific bloodshed.  That flies in the face of your ideals.

That these "nut job religious zealots" may be pointing out a truth that people want desperately to reject IS important.  It may cause people to do seemingly irrational things like asking for the issue to be forced and risk violence just to resolve it quickly.  It may cause people to consider that when respect fails to protect you that the ability to threaten may be almost as useful. 

This would loose people to your (the anti-gun, peaceful protest liberal) ideals and potentially spark violence or give others the excuse to use violence on the larger group.  This is terrifying and all because some jackasses are camping out where they shouldn't be and antagonizing the feds for publicity? 

I'm not saying we should take a "wait and see" approach when dealing with groups who's stated goals is the death of innocent American's .  I'm not saying we should rush in and kill all these occupiers because they dared to mix guns and religion.

I'm saying that one of the (as I see it) ugliest arguments for the need to have guns is to protect you from our law enforcement or federal government is NOT as nuts as we would like to think.  That a group who the overwhelming majority thinks are misguided or dangerous criminals are "teaching us" that ugliness about ourselves... well it sucks.

Oh and if they said that they were claiming this as a beachhead for their own American caliphate because Allah told them to... they'd already be dead.  It wouldn't matter if there was nobody out there for them to hurt Pete.  (and I'd be just fine with that)

Pretending we don't have double standards has as much a corrupting effect on our country as the double standards we acknowledge.

That depends whether I, as an anti gun liberal, love human life more than I hate guns.

When we consider sending in armed troops, whether a group has stated violent goals is less relevant that whether people are in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious harm. 

I am a cripple today because some poor stupid *censored*er was denied benefits by a stingy system and was brainwashed by social justice types to believe that anything bad that happens to him was because of his skin color. So the dumb bastard took a couple shotguns into a court to try to kill the most liberal fed judge in Nevada. 

I don't appreciate Al basically soliciting a mass shootout based on skin color and religion. 

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 13, 2016, 01:52:41 PM
"When we consider sending in armed troops, whether a group has stated violent goals is   should be less relevant that whether people are in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious harm." 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 13, 2016, 02:00:03 PM
I love this thought experiment by DW.

"Oh and if they said that they were claiming this as a beachhead for their own American caliphate because Allah told them to... they'd already be dead.  It wouldn't matter if there was nobody out there for them to hurt Pete.  (and I'd be just fine with that)"

Ah, I strongly disagree that it would be OK to take them out. Anyone who does a peaceful nonviolent protest for ISIS in the USA is probably legally insane, and deserves to be handled with mittens.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 13, 2016, 02:22:39 PM
I worry about the impact it has on the wider public when they make us face our own hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy or a double standard to treat different circumstances differently based on relevant distinctions.  It could be hypocrisy to insist they be treated in the same way because of irrelevant distinctions (ie we must react harshly because these men are white).

An Urban stand off by this same group would cause a much more aggressive and hostile response.  A middle of no where protest by a minority group wouldn't see the mobilization of thousands of extra police officers.  The response in all cases is proportionate the risk to uninvolved parties, and even in an urban setting where violence is present is typically limited in as far as is possible to non-lethal and targeted responses.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 13, 2016, 02:30:49 PM
Well then I'm glad I make a poor hypothetical crazy person.  I would think that such actions when viewed through the lens of mistrust of the government, the other party, those at the other end of the economic spectrum or of another race would cause more instances like what happened to Pete. 

Maybe I'm wrong.  I hope I'm wrong. 

I suppose if it was easy to anticipate what thought process and what influences may trigger people to violence we'd be a lot better at stopping it.  I'm not advocating what you use as an example Seriati.  I'm pointing out that there may be those who fail to acknowledges such distinctions.  You know, like a crazy person who tries to solve their problem or push their agenda through armed violence...
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 13, 2016, 02:33:03 PM
Quote
[Pete:] I already did recognize that they are religious extremists in spite of you repeatedly pretending I had said otherwise.
Read again, Pete, I was saying that you *did* say that.  Accept that I sometimes acknowledge *and* agree with you :).
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 13, 2016, 02:45:28 PM
Quote
The response in all cases is proportionate the risk to uninvolved parties, and even in an urban setting where violence is present is typically limited in as far as is possible to non-lethal and targeted responses.
It's more complicated than that.  My guess is that the BLM figured the group would embarrass themselves and slink away, leaving a trail of their shame behind.  But we're apparently in an era where humiliating yourself with stupid or unconscionable actions doesn't harm your reputation.  The only ways to get people to active confront you, it seems, is to be in the act of pulling the trigger or more generally to be black or Muslim whatever the circumstances.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 13, 2016, 02:57:32 PM
Quote
[Pete:] I already did recognize that they are religious extremists in spite of you repeatedly pretending I had said otherwise.
Read again, Pete, I was saying that you *did* say that.  Accept that I sometimes acknowledge *and* agree with you :).

If I misunderstood you I apologize. What set me off wascyour quoting me, then saying right after the quote, when will Christians recognise extremism in their midst.

Remember, it's Faux News, not anyone here, that uses the Islamic extremist mantra.  The danger in Islamist groups, or in violent Christian groups like some of the crusaders, is not their extremism with regard of their overall religion.  Say "extreme Christians" and I think of the Amish.  I have know some extremely devoted Muslims that are no more dangerous than the Amish.   

If a pro ISIS group took over an abandoned govt facility in mid nowhere, I would say exactly the same. Cut the power and arrest them when they come out.

Not perfectly analogous since Mormons probably have a generator and a year's supply of food.  But that doesn't change the principle of preventing unnecessary bloodshed.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 13, 2016, 03:09:33 PM
Quote
The response in all cases is proportionate the risk to uninvolved parties, and even in an urban setting where violence is present is typically limited in as far as is possible to non-lethal and targeted responses.
It's more complicated than that. 

Based on what?

Ever hear of Occam's Razor?   If a simple explanation works, why complicate it with death dealing insinuations?

If it weren't for bloodbath seeking lefties, maybe black lives matter or other groups might take a page from this and stage some big cathartic Woodstock out in the middle of nowhere instead of breaking the peace in the cities. The press could come along.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 13, 2016, 04:33:21 PM
OK, that last bloodbath seeking lefties thing looks like I was zinging Al, and that's hardly reasonable in a discussion of a dozen people.  I'be jest been reading that whole "what if Ammon was black" horse crap from mainstream newbies, calls for affirmative violence, etc.  Given my history, it raises my ire.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 13, 2016, 04:49:19 PM
Are they newbies because they are asking a question with an obvious answer? 

Also I would suggest that there are few bloodthirsty calls for equality through shootout.  The opposite is the goal actually.  That if you can restrain the urge to "do something" to "handle the situation" when it comes to guys like this, then you can certainly keep your cool in the face of an urban unarmed protest.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 13, 2016, 07:01:18 PM
Are they newbies because they are asking a question with an obvious answer? 

Also I would suggest that there are few bloodthirsty calls for equality through shootout.  The opposite is the goal actually. .

They are newsies. Newbies was an automangle.  Al didn't make that stuff up. Big talking lefties are drooling for white Christian nutjob blood.  It's been too long since Waco and the hippy establishment wants another fix.

" That if you can restrain the urge to "do something" to "handle the situation" when it comes to guys like this, then you can certainly keep your cool in the face of an urban unarmed protest"

Unarmed protesters in an urban setting pose more of a threat than armed protesters in the wilderness.

Unarmed protesters just burnt someone alive in Maryland. 

The issue is preventing harm to human beings.  Folks that don't take that into consideration and babble about double standards are either being obtuse or suffer from pathological inhumanity. 

It's about public safety.

Why is this so hard to grasp?  It's not.  The only difference if this was a group of gay black Muslims doing this, is that the far lefties and the far right would be arguing opposite sides.  My recommendations would remain the same. Cut the power, wait, then arrest them.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 13, 2016, 08:59:29 PM
Quote
Big talking lefties are drooling for white Christian nutjob blood.  It's been too long since Waco and the hippy establishment wants another fix.
This is why talking to you seems pointless.  You made about five gratuitous insults or slanders against unattributed "lefties" in those two short sentences.  You've been on a rampage lately, and it's kind of unsettling to watch.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 13, 2016, 09:45:30 PM
Quote
Folks that don't take that into consideration and babble about double standards are either being obtuse or suffer from pathological inhumanity.
You can occasionally learn something being obtuse or temporarily shedding your humanity.  Attempting to view or force human behavior constantly into some ideal of "humane" and relying on "common sense" can easily lead you astray as well.  :)
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 13, 2016, 10:05:22 PM
Quote
Folks that don't take that into consideration and babble about double standards are either being obtuse or suffer from pathological inhumanity.
You can occasionally learn something being obtuse or temporarily shedding your humanity.  Attempting to view or force human behavior constantly into some ideal of "humane" and relying on "common sense" can easily lead you astray as well.  :)

I think what he's trying to say is that blinding oneself to the common sense facts on the ground and instead interpreting events based on some preconceived narrative or agenda is a manner of thinking that requires dehumanizing the situation and ignoring what people (other than the echo chamber) are saying. Regardless of whether anyone here is doing this at the moment, I agree with Pete's sentiment fully and bemoan the fact that so much information people receive is filtered through a lens not of their own making. It probably wouldn't be unfair to say that many people literally don't live in the same world as each other. The lack of ability to see what's right in front of you can be a great obstacle to overcome, especially when you're sure you see just fine. That being said I agree with DW also that it's excellent to be able to see the matter from all perspectives, if possible. The trouble is that doing so requires putting yourself in the other person's head to see their thinking, and if you have no respect for the other person then it would certainly be off putting to think of inhabiting their head for any period of time.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 13, 2016, 11:34:52 PM
Quote
Folks that don't take that into consideration and babble about double standards are either being obtuse or suffer from pathological inhumanity.
You can occasionally learn something being obtuse or temporarily shedding your humanity.  Attempting to view or force human behavior constantly into some ideal of "humane" and relying on "common sense" can easily lead you astray as well.  :)

If someone consistently plays obtuse and sheds their common sense and humanity when talking about a specific class of people, I respectfully submit that they are not "trying to learn" something new, DW.

If someone on a public forum, calls for policy that would lead to needless mass homicide, it seems appropriate to call them on on it.

Al Wessex: bla bla bla, unattributed "lefties" bla bla bla

Sorry: I needed a while to look up one of the articles that I was reading. (Remember paper news? Apparently it still exists.). EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST.  Bloodthirsty bastardy claims that it would be "point and shoot" rather than "wait and see" if "a bunch of black people, filled with rage and armed to the teeth" had taken a fed building and challenged authorities. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 13, 2016, 11:43:19 PM
"That being said I agree with DW also that it's excellent to be able to see the matter from all perspectives, if possible."

My trouble is that I can sympathize and see from the warped perspective of the poor dumb *censored*ers whose mass shooting crippled me, and I feel that he's even more a victim than me, of these bloodthirsty demagogues that turn rejection into a racist event.  So when I see some educated gated community dwelling honky newspaper writer spewing this sort of blood libel, I feel a bit like Inigo Montoya.  And I have done nothing for years but study wordplay.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 13, 2016, 11:43:25 PM

Sorry: I needed a while to look up one of the articles that I was reading. (Remember paper news? Apparently it still exists.). EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST.  Bloodthirsty bastardy claims that it would be "point and shoot" rather than "wait and see" if "a bunch of black people, filled with rage and armed to the teeth" had taken a fed building and challenged authorities.

Are you quite sure you understood what he said? The point of such commentary is to make the claim that black people are treated worse than they should be, not that white people should get the same. You're looking for consistency and changing the wrong variable to attain it.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 13, 2016, 11:52:24 PM

Sorry: I needed a while to look up one of the articles that I was reading. (Remember paper news? Apparently it still exists.). EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST.  Bloodthirsty bastardy claims that it would be "point and shoot" rather than "wait and see" if "a bunch of black people, filled with rage and armed to the teeth" had taken a fed building and challenged authorities.

Are you quite sure you understood what he said? The point of such commentary is to make the claim that black people are treated worse than they should be, not that white people should get the same. You're looking for consistency and changing the wrong variable to attain it.

He's telling black protesters that if they walk through neighborhoods burning and breaking things, that it's only racism that gets the police to respond violently.   That's a message that, if believed, will cause death.  Mostly the deaths of angry black prptesters.  If Robinson gave a floundering *censored* about black protesters who wanted to get their message out, he could have pointed to Ammon's methods as a clever recipe for catching the news without getting marchers harmed.

It actually might work out better for a small well armed black group willing to go to jail, because unlike Ammon and company, they would be celebrities by the time they got to the joint.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 14, 2016, 12:02:49 AM
" The point of such commentary is to make the claim that black people are treated worse than they should be,"

Dude, I KNOW to that black people are treated worse than whites in many situations.  But I also know, from defending black clients, that expecting racism where it does not exist, is often more crippling than actual white on black racism. Not to mention much harder to defuse.  "When the wrongg words go in the right ear," Robinson's arguments literally have the same function as the programming of a suicide bomber.  This sort of gibberish feeds on the desperation of angry blacks in the same way that Fox News feeds on fear of white suburbia. But this message is more immediately dangerous to people living on the edge.  This is how the New York train shooter was born.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 14, 2016, 12:08:59 AM
Robinson is the one pointing to the wrong variable. He attributes the difference to skin color rather than to a remote location far away from anyone's home. 

If Ammon had seized a post office in downtown Ferguson, bullets would be flying.  That's not to say that race is NEVER a factor, or even that it's not OFTEN a factor. But obviously , here, race is not the dispositive factor. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 14, 2016, 12:18:29 AM
Obtuse: "The only ways to get people to active confront you, it seems, is to be in the act of pulling the trigger or more generally to be black or Muslim whatever the circumstances"

Think harder.  Even the act of pulling the trigger makes no bloody difference if you are in rural Oregon miles from any innocents who might get hurt and miles from any private store or residence.  Think harder. The dispositive difference here is location, not skin color or religion.

Yes, bigotry happens and often results in unfairness.  But to attribute an advantage to race and religion and to play stupid about the obvious determining factors which have nothing to do with race and religion, is a sort of bigotry of its own.  Hell, isn't that the standard historical form that antisemitism has taken? Attributing advantages to Jew's as a group to foment death dealing envy? 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Gaoics79 on January 14, 2016, 07:47:31 AM
Quote
Jason, just two notes:
1. "Obama's a liberal, and liberals believe X" is a tiresome bore of a statement. None of the usual political labels are quite as significant as that, and people are complicated. Take it from me - I am now regularly called "conservative" and "liberal", to my amusement each time. I'm not saying you're wrong about Obama, but I am just tired of that line of argument.

Josh, I'm usually one to eschew labels like this, but in this case I don't think it's terribly complicated or nuanced. You know exactly what I mean when I say "liberal" in this context. And you know why there isn't much speculation required to guess that an urban educated person with Obama's political background is going to favour far more severe restrictions on 2nd amendment rights than the average person.

It's like if I told you that I'm a rural evangelical from Louisiana who attends church and rejects the theory of evolution. You wouldn't need to jump to some kind of enormous leap of logic to guess that I might be pro life or that I wouldn't be comfortable with gay marriage.

Quote
2. I would note that a majority of gun owners in America (and about 90% of the general population) support background checks, which is a key element of what is being discussed. Yes, again, this is not necessarily "what's in his heart", but again it's not as clean as you are making it appear to be. Many, if not most, gun owners support reasonable gun control measures.

Yes, but here's where we come to the problem. Most of us would agree with some sensible restrictions. Some of those restrictions are already in place, even in the USA, but there are a few that aren't. We know that Obama and co. will not stop with a few background checks. They will use that as a start to put into place even tighter restrictions. Every time there's a new shooting, you'll see a new wave of laws to plug the latest "loophole". Moreover, there are people who (rightly) don't trust the Federal government to implement the laws that it does pass in a way that is sensible and fair to gun owners.

And they're right not to. Take Canada for an example. Here our governments have been hostile to gun ownership for years. Shoot an invader in your house in the dead of night, and it's you who will be charged.

http://www.630ched.com/2015/11/21/northern-alberta-homeowner-charged-after-shooting-intruder/

Want to own a gun? Sure, no problem! Just so long as it's "safely" stored, meaning that the gun needs to be locked up in a safe somewhere with the bullets locked up two towns down the road in a bank vault :) (that's barely an exaggeration)

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/lorne-gunter-canadas-laws-on-the-safe-storage-of-firearms-need-clarifying

Quote
... The Liberals intentionally wrote the 1995 Firearms Act to be as ambiguous as possible and give prosecutors as big a net as possible in which to ensnare gun owners. Their intention was to make gun ownership as complicated and onerous as possible so as to encourage owners to give up their firearms.

When there was a flood disaster a few years back in Alberta, as RCMP officers went through certain rural areas that had been abandoned or evacuated due to flood, they literally went through empty homes confiscating "unsafely" stored firearms (although in some cases, residents allege that they simply bashed open locked doors and whatnot and just took the guns).

http://globalnews.ca/news/1827143/class-action-lawsuit-launched-against-high-river-rcmp-over-gun-seizures/

Quote
“The door was completely destroyed,” laments Jane White. “The bolt from the door was sitting halfway up the stairs on a landing. There was a large amount of mud brought into my home, taken up the stairway on my new carpet. It was on my beds, it was on my jewelry boxes, it was in my closet. There were footprints in my kitchen around by the sink, over around by the dining room area. And when they took the guns they did damage to the walls… left dents and black marks.”

“I was rather angry,” said Doug White. “I was rather angry that somebody can come into your house and steal your property.”

Did those residents get their guns back? Not to my knowledge. That's what can happen when you have a government inherently hostile to gun ownership. I don't blame average citizens in the USA who are hostile to any measure of gun control.

It's like when evangelicals try to pass laws on abortion. The law may not be a ban on abortion. It might even be a restriction that's reasonable and that most people can get behind. But when it's certain people proposing the laws, the hairs on the back of any solidly pro choice citizen's neck are going to rightly stand up.

I don't know how to cut the Gordion knot. It's just the sad truth when you have two extreme groups warring over and ideological issue, often the middle ground gets burned to cinders.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 14, 2016, 09:46:11 AM
Quote
EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST.  Bloodthirsty bastardy claims that it would be "point and shoot" rather than "wait and see" if "a bunch of black people, filled with rage and armed to the teeth" had taken a fed building and challenged authorities.
I take it by your tone and adjective choice, you feel the statement is absurd?

I am uncertain myself.  I don’t think it’s a given that it would be “point and shoot” but  I think the odds of it tipping that way are significantly higher.  If they were claiming Islamic motivation, higher yet.

My larger point (scattered in my rambling) was that if you believe that what I say is wrong, WHY?  IMO the answer is… guns.  So if the answer is guns, then what conclusions do an advocate to peaceful protesting, racial equality and who is against guns reach?  As someone who advocates the right to carry a firearm for defense and keep one in your home I don’t fit this description so I can only speculate.

I think this line of thinking makes a certain group of people question their entrenched beliefs and ideals.  When that happens people either become more receptive to new points of view, or lose their damn minds…  (or they just try to reel in the person diving too far down the hypothetical rabbit holes)

Quote
Robinson's arguments literally have the same function as the programming of a suicide bomber.  This sort of gibberish feeds on the desperation of angry blacks in the same way that Fox News feeds on fear of white suburbia.
This is exactly one of the points I was trying to make.  It’s not Ammon and crew that is the threat, it’s what seeing their actions and the reaction to them and what it makes others THINK and DO as a result that is the problem.  The situation pushes a lot of buttons all at once.  The situation isn’t all that physically dangerous, it’s a catalyst for trouble down the road.  I think you are approaching this line of thinking (unless it really is totally absurd and I’m the kook) as TOO rational.  Put on your less informed social media “I only read the headlines” hat.  Now try again.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 14, 2016, 11:17:15 AM
Quote
EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST.  Bloodthirsty bastardy claims that it would be "point and shoot" rather than "wait and see" if "a bunch of black people, filled with rage and armed to the teeth" had taken a fed building and challenged authorities.
I take it by your tone and adjective choice, you feel the statement is absurd?

I am uncertain myself.  I don’t think it’s a given that it would be “point and shoot” but  I think the odds of it tipping that way are significantly higher.  If they were claiming Islamic motivation, higher..


Yes, I think the question is absurd.  Because if people "filled with rage" and Islamic extremists, were to demonstrate in a way that WASN'T likely to make people afraid for their lives families and homes ("we get no justice, you get no peace") then the wor "rage" does not mean what Mr Robinson thinks it means.

Ammon Bundy is a misguided religious fanatic, but he hasn't threatened innocents, and any newsman that fails to recognize that when drawing moral equivalencies is a death dealing son of a bitch.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 14, 2016, 11:50:29 AM
I don't think you are wrong, but that means that words are more likely to instigate a violent response than guns?  Again, I think that's true (for a lot of reasons) and I think that realizing this is blowing a lot of minds.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 14, 2016, 11:53:53 AM
Quote
EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST.  Bloodthirsty bastardy claims that it would be "point and shoot" rather than "wait and see" if "a bunch of black people, filled with rage and armed to the teeth" had taken a fed building and challenged authorities.
I take it by your tone and adjective choice, you feel the statement is absurd?

I am uncertain myself.  I don’t think it’s a given that it would be “point and shoot” but  I think the odds of it tipping that way are significantly higher.  If they were claiming Islamic motivation, higher yet.
Why speculate?  There are thousands of peaceful protests each year that do not devolve into even the point and shoot scenario.  What's different about them?  It's not race, there are plenty of protests that are populated principally by minorities that never run any risk of an armed response.

There are even protests that devolved into riots or looting where the armed response was limited, or even not present.  Show us an actual comparable that was handled differently, rather than a vague 'everyone knows' its handled differently assertion.
Quote
My larger point (scattered in my rambling) was that if you believe that what I say is wrong, WHY?
I believe you're wrong because you're not referencing actual fact patterns, but instead you are referencing "common knowledge" of how situations turn out differently.  Put up some examples and we can see why they turned out differently.
Quote
IMO the answer is… guns.
And how does that explain the differences between the thousands of protests where guns are not involved?  I do think this will turn out differently on another basis as well, I think these men will face charges after they leave the compound, which is not something that is common in protests where guns are not involved.
Quote
So if the answer is guns, then what conclusions do an advocate to peaceful protesting, racial equality and who is against guns reach?
If guns make a difference (which honestly I don't think is a valid premise), then it ought to cause the conclusion that peaceful protesters carry arms if they want to slow down an armed response.  However, I also think carrying guns shuts downs sympathy for your positions, gets you branded as lunatics and subjects you to the real risk of serious legal consequences afterwards. 

I think you're trading a nominal amount of "extra" time, which won't be present if you conduct a protest in an Urban area because of the conflicting needs for the space and the enhanced risk of harm to bystanders, for a lot of credibility and effectiveness.  You're maximizing a lesser goal at the expense of your prime goal.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 14, 2016, 12:12:33 PM
I agree that these men will face charges.  I agree that a "just add guns" directive will make a mess of things. 

I'm not articulating the point I'm trying to get across well at all. 

I think the overwhelming majority of people are not deep thinkers.  They react to narratives.  Race, religion, guns, mistrust of the government are all in the forefront here.  Any agenda you want to push, this situation gave you a leaver. 

Quote
Show us an actual comparable that was handled differently, rather than a vague 'everyone knows' its handled differently assertion.
  I'm uncertain turns into everyone knows?  :)  "Actual comparable" would require I read your mind and give you two examples that fit YOUR criteria as you may dismiss two that just fit mine.

Would it even matter if I had one or a dozen instances?  How many Goldilocks zone comparisons would it take to be statistically relevant?  I don't have ANY by the way, nor am I inclined to look for them.  If you think everyone get's a fair shake on how their protesting is reacted to, fine.  I'm glad to hear it.  I think the more of us who believe that (no matter what the truth is) the better off we will be as a country.  It will BECOME reality if it's not already true.   

It's not like we can discuss how a particular protest "would be better served to present their message" without creating a *censored*storm.  :) 

In this political climate we like our opponents evil or stupid or crazy and anything which contradicts an adopted narrative is dangerous.  I see this as a gray area.  If others can not only fit it into their narrative but also believe that the country at large can do the same, then I hope your optimism rubs off on me.  Or if it's not optimism but partisan tunnel-vision then I guess at least things won't get worse.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: NobleHunter on January 14, 2016, 01:16:51 PM
Whatever the reason for the Fed's low-key approach to these idiots are, I hope the militias have a strong understanding of it. If these anti-government types miss the key factors in the Fed's decision not to force the issue, the next stand-off won't be so stable. If that happens, it could get very bloody very quickly.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: scifibum on January 14, 2016, 02:00:56 PM
Admit that I haven't spent much time reading the thread, just want to offer an opinion:

I think some Democrats DO want to ban guns.  However, their policy proposals don't usually resemble this end goal.  Their policy proposals are usually either designed to make people feel like something is being done, or chip away at the edges of the problem that there are too many guns out there and it's too easy for criminals and dangerous nuts to get them. 

Ironically, GOP/NRA resistance to any gun control measures is probably going to work against them in the end.  We'll just stick with the status quo and body count until there's a sufficient national disgust to modify the 2nd amendment. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 14, 2016, 02:23:09 PM
I don't think you are wrong, but that means that words are more likely to instigate a violent response than guns?  Again, I think that's true (for a lot of reasons) and I think that realizing this is blowing a lot of minds.

I mean that on the street among young black men (some of whom I offered legal counsel to in jail) that sort of talk breeds death dealing hopelessness.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 14, 2016, 02:42:37 PM
"I don't think you are wrong, but that means that words are more likely to instigate a violent response than guns?  "

A word into the ear of angry people is more likely to provoke violence than a bunch of guns in the middle of nowhere.  Again, guns can't kill people in absence of people. 

If Ammon Bundy had taken over a post office in East Los Angeles, and scaring the neighbors, then it would be a different conversation.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 14, 2016, 02:48:08 PM
"We'll just stick with the status quo and body count until there's a sufficient national disgust to modify the 2nd amendment. "

And that's probably what most of the vicious folks want who call for a BLM raid on Bundy. Dead bodies make a good platform for legislation that strips away constitutional rights. Patriot act all over again. The Reichstag Fire. Slaves are made this way.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: NobleHunter on January 14, 2016, 02:52:47 PM
"We'll just stick with the status quo and body count until there's a sufficient national disgust to modify the 2nd amendment. "

And that's probably what most of the vicious folks want who call for a BLM raid on Bundy. Dead bodies make a good platform for legislation that strips away constitutional rights.  Bloody minded ideologues.
Assuming there are people who want a raid to end in slaughter, I suspect it's more to convince the white, rural, anti-government set that police brutality is their problem, too. Considering dead first-graders did SFA to budge the gun control debate, I doubt anyone would count on dead feds and ranchers having much of an effect.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 14, 2016, 03:03:55 PM
It wouldn't.  That's because two sides see it through different lenses.

If the feds went in guns blazing and took these guys out would it be "police/government brutality"?  Would it be justice?  Would it be proof that we are living under tyranny already?

If school kids get murdered by someone wielding a gun is it a time for gun control changes?  Time to address mental health?  Time to abandon gun-free sacrifice zones?

People reach the conclusions that do NOT conflict with their beliefs if there is room to do so.  There's usually room to do so...  At least if you don't pick at it too long.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 14, 2016, 03:09:35 PM
Whatever the reason for the Fed's low-key approach to these idiots are, I hope the militias have a strong understanding of it. If these anti-government types miss the key factors in the Fed's decision not to force the issue, the next stand-off won't be so stable. If that happens, it could get very bloody very quickly.


Explaining that to the duller elements of the public is basic PR responsibility of the Fed.

As long as militia don't take hostages, stage armed protesters in inhabited areas, or occupy delicate industrial or military areas (missile depots, chemical processing, power plants, etc, or call for violent overthrow of the government, there is no imminent threat, no making war on the USA. therefore no forceful assault.  No need to turn Camp Yahoo into another mass shooting.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 14, 2016, 03:12:03 PM
"We'll just stick with the status quo and body count until there's a sufficient national disgust to modify the 2nd amendment. "

And that's probably what most of the vicious folks want who call for a BLM raid on Bundy. Dead bodies make a good platform for legislation that strips away constitutional rights.  Bloody minded ideologues.
Assuming there are people who want a raid to end in slaughter, I suspect it's more to convince the white, rural, anti-government set that police brutality is their problem, too. Considering dead first-graders did SFA to budge the gun control debate, I doubt anyone would count on dead feds and ranchers having much of an effect.

I don't believe in killing people who have committed no violence in order to accomplish a public relations objective .  That's what distinguishes US from Al Qaeda.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: NobleHunter on January 14, 2016, 03:21:17 PM
Quote
Explaining that to the duller elements of the public is basic PR responsibility of the Fed.

As long as militia don't take hostages, stage armed protesters in inhabited areas, or occupy delicate industrial or military areas (missile depots, chemical processing, power plants, etc, or call for violent overthrow of the government, there is no imminent threat, no making war on the USA. therefore no forceful assault.  No need to turn Camp Yahoo into another mass shooting.
The Fed can explain it but that doesn't mean this lot will understand. Granted, I don't really think these idiots should be shot pour encourager les autres but one potential consequence of keeping this low key is people might think this kind of stunt is low-risk and that's not necessarily true.
I don't believe in killing people who have committed no violence in order to accomplish a public relations objective .  That's what distinguishes US from Al Qaeda.
By that logic, the US is indistinguishable from Al Qaeda.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 14, 2016, 03:28:33 PM
Quote
Explaining that to the duller elements of the public is basic PR responsibility of the Fed.

As long as militia don't take hostages, stage armed protesters in inhabited areas, or occupy delicate industrial or military areas (missile depots, chemical processing, power plants, etc, or call for violent overthrow of the government, there is no imminent threat, no making war on the USA. therefore no forceful assault.  No need to turn Camp Yahoo into another mass shooting.
The Fed can explain it but that doesn't mean this lot will understand. Granted, I don't really think these idiots should be shot pour encourager les autres but one potential consequence of keeping this low key is people might think this kind of stunt is low-risk and that's not necessarily true.
I don't believe in killing people who have committed no violence in order to accomplish a public relations objective .  That's what distinguishes US from Al Qaeda.
By that logic, the US is indistinguishable from Al Qaeda.

Was your remark obtuse or can you point to nonviolent people has the United States targeted for PR purposes? 

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: NobleHunter on January 14, 2016, 03:45:22 PM
Was your remark obtuse or can you point to nonviolent people has the United States targeted for PR purposes?
You didn't say "targeted," you said "killed." So see War on Terror, Collateral Damage of.

I can't think of any non-violent people specifically targeted by the US for PR purposes off the top of my head, but it's certainly within the range of historical behaviors.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki might count.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 14, 2016, 03:46:51 PM
"I suspect it's more to convince the white, rural, anti-government set that police brutality is their problem, too. "

OK, a bit of remedial United States government and politics is in order. The Black lives matter bunch are concerned with STATE police and see the fed as their friend. The white extremists see the FED as their enemy.  Ruby Ridge and WACO did not have the effect you describe.  The result was a bit of non gun violence in a place called Oklahoma City.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: NobleHunter on January 14, 2016, 03:51:15 PM
"I suspect it's more to convince the white, rural, anti-government set that police brutality is their problem, too. "

OK, a bit of remedial United States government and politics is in order. The Black lives matter bunch are concerned with STATE police and see the fed as their friend. The white extremists see the FED as their enemy.  Ruby Ridge and WACO did not have the effect you describe.  The result was a bit of non gun violence in a place called Oklahoma City.
We're talking about people suggesting as a massacre. I don't think such fine distinctions are going to occur to them.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 14, 2016, 04:20:33 PM
"We're talking about people suggesting as a massacre. "

?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: NobleHunter on January 14, 2016, 04:22:53 PM
Suggesting a massacre, rather. Calling for the feds to go in shooting.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 15, 2016, 10:41:06 AM
 8)
Was your remark obtuse or can you point to nonviolent people has the United States targeted for PR purposes?
You didn't say "targeted," you said "killed." So see War on Terror, Collateral Damage of.

I can't think of any non-violent people specifically targeted by the US for PR purposes off the top of my head, but it's certainly within the range of historical behaviors.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki might count.

Agreed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki being terrorist acts where innocents were killed for PR purposes.

Targeted is inherent in the phrase innocents killed FOR PR PURPOSES. If their death was purposeful then they were the target. Innocents that died at Nagasaki were not collateral. They were part of the target.

Nevertheless Nagasaki was 75,years ago, and Al Qaeda is today.  We lack both good and bad attributes we had 75 years ago.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 15, 2016, 10:45:21 AM
Suggesting a massacre, rather. Calling for the feds to go in shooting.

Al did just that on this forum.  Robinson did not, but I say other lefties calling for such affirmative massacre.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 15, 2016, 11:39:03 AM
Claiming Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist acts where innocents were killed for PR purposes is a bit too much of judging through a revisionist modern lens.  The people involved were fighting a war where targeting civilians and infrastructure were deemed legitimate tactics to degrade the enemies ability and will to fight.  I get why you're tempted to do it, but it's not terribly accurate to hold the decision upto modern concepts that are based on an established belief in Geneva Conventions that were drafted after that war.

Their deaths certainly sent a message, but the purpose was way beyond public relations.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 15, 2016, 12:13:53 PM
You'd guess wrong as to my motives.  My definition  of terrorism as targeting innocents for PR purposes is NOT a product of any treaty or convention since WWII.

I have long defended the Hiroshima bombing as necessary to end the war, but when I was hired to assist  the terrorism and counter terrorism project back in law school, none of my research turned up any plausible non PR purpose for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The sole reason was to "send a message"

If you are saying that the bombings are less evil then because of laws and treaties encoded since then, I agree.  That's not at issue.  I am seeking to define terrorism to understand the act and it's consequences on the world.  I am not calling for an ex post facto criminal indictment.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 15, 2016, 12:19:44 PM
"The people involved were fighting a war where targeting civilians and infrastructure were deemed legitimate tactics to degrade the enemies ability and will to fight"

There was no significant infrastructure in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  From what I researched, that is precisely why they were chosen as targets. Because they were pristine and untouched by the war, since there were no targets except for the people themselves.  The message was that the USA was throwing out the rule book. Targeting innocents to destroy the enemy's will is terrorism per se.  If that was considered legitimate, well, that's not the first nor the last time that terrorism was treated as a legitimate state tool. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 15, 2016, 12:31:23 PM
Also, saying that it was terrorism doesn't necessarily mean I think it was not justified.  When a terrorist act saves five or more times as much life as it took, and inflicts less survivor trauma than otherwise would have occurred, then I tend to think the act could be argued justified.  The US action allowed an end to the war without the horror that was previously occurring every time any Japanese island was taken. Civilians leaping to their death.  No A bomb would have resulted in a Japan partitioned between the US and Russia ... and on the four islands Russia did take, not a single Japanese person lives to this day.  Sometimes Russia let's them visit their ancestors graves, but that's it.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 15, 2016, 12:35:02 PM
Pete, I didn't make a judgment about your motives.  And I'm not disputing that Hiroshima and Nagaski were evil acts.  I'm just pointing out that the universal recognition, and agreement, on that judgment came as a result of those acts and after those acts.  I was struck when I was reading Triplanetary, which was written in the mid-30's by the attitude of the characters towards weapons of mass destruction and targeting of civilians.  They didn't see a difference, other than scale in using regular weapons versus biological, chemical, nuclear weapons.  The main characters gas an entire city (killing everyone in it) to escape from a prison, and expected (and were correct) that it would be water under the bridge when treating with the enemy commander as a reasonable and legitimate tactic of war.  That's a very different mentality than what we hold as basic tenants today.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 15, 2016, 01:20:57 PM
Evil and vindictive I would slap on the firebombing of Dresden.

I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were correctly calculated to end the war with fewest casualties.  Horrible, yes, but I would not say evil.  God will judge.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 15, 2016, 01:23:40 PM
Good point about the targeting of civilians being considered legitimate pre Wwii.  But even then there needed to be some military objective.  If pr were legitimate then the motives behind Dresden would not have been "classified" for half a century.  They knew it was wrong when they did it.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 15, 2016, 01:25:34 PM
Suggesting a massacre, rather. Calling for the feds to go in shooting.

Al did just that on this forum.  Robinson did not, but I say other lefties calling for such affirmative massacre.
No, I didn't.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 15, 2016, 01:31:58 PM
Ah, so when you called for the BLM to raid that little armed fortress of folks you characterize as religious fanatics, you suppose it will go down NOT like Ruby Ridge or Waco?  Please explain how what you said was a call for anything other than a bloodbath.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 15, 2016, 01:38:06 PM
Ah, so when you called for the BLM to raid that little armed fortress of folks you characterize as religious fanatics, you suppose it will go down NOT like Ruby Ridge or Waco?  Please explain how what you said was a call for anything other than a bloodbath.
I don't enjoy being held hostage to your continual motive speculations and misreadings of what I say.  I said they should go in and arrest them.  I'd be quite happy if one lone BLM agent went in with a white flag and collected them.  If they refuse that gracious request, then a more forceful statement would be needed.  At the far end of absurdity would be going in with guns blazing.  Every possible measure should be taken to make sure that nobody is harmed.  If it comes to violence, the BLM agents and the bystanding members of the local population's safety comes before the armed occupiers.  They are breaking the law, destroying property and threatening to use weapons to "defend" themselves.  What they would be defending themselves against, no matter how little or much shooting might occur, is their lawful expulsion and/or arrest and any future legal and criminal proceedings taken against them.

Get me now?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 15, 2016, 01:40:09 PM
All morality is situational.  It does however have a lot of mass.  It isn't shifted easily or quickly, but it's far from immutable or absolute.

It only moves in a positive direction with extended periods of contentment.  The idea that we somehow became more enlightened during or post the Geneva convention would be laughable if not so sad.

We avoid atrocities because we don't need them to attain our goals.  Because we want shame or the threat of allied reprisal to shied us from falling victim to those atrocities.  And because it's valuable domesticly and among our allies to paint ourselves as "good guys".

Good auto corrects as google?  Suspicious android phone, very suspicious. ..
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 15, 2016, 01:41:16 PM
Quote
And because it's valuable domestic and among our allies to paint ouselvrs as "Google guys".
Gosh, I hope you don't correct that :).
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 15, 2016, 01:45:35 PM
Too late.  :P
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 15, 2016, 01:54:55 PM
Al, it seems your explanation of what you'd like to see amounts to "get them out of there using any means necessary, but try using peaceful methods first." Under the assumption that waving a white flag won't get them to leave, you therefore endorse going in and gunning them down? They have, in fact, stated directly that they won't leave and are willing to die for their cause. It doesn't sound like your white flag strategy is likely to work, which basically means you think they should be taken out. Or am I misreading what you wrote?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 15, 2016, 02:01:05 PM
While I think "wait them out" is a good plan, choosing not to enforce some laws seems to generate a lot of criticism for a certain high profile someone.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 15, 2016, 02:09:28 PM
Ah, so when you called for the BLM to raid that little armed fortress of folks you characterize as religious fanatics, you suppose it will go down NOT like Ruby Ridge or Waco?  Please explain how what you said was a call for anything other than a bloodbath.
I don't enjoy being held hostage to your continual motive speculations and misreadings of what I say.  I said they should go in and arrest them.  I'd be quite happy if one lone BLM agent went in with a white flag and collected them.  If they refuse that gracious request, then a more forceful statement would be needed.  At the far end of absurdity would be going in with guns blazing.  Every possible measure should be taken to make sure that nobody is harmed.  If it comes to violence, the BLM agents and the bystanding members of the local population's safety comes before the armed occupiers.  They are breaking the law, destroying property and threatening to use weapons to "defend" themselves.  What they would be defending themselves against, no matter how little or much shooting might occur, is their lawful expulsion and/or arrest and any future legal and criminal proceedings taken against them.

Get me now?

Getting you would require a motive inference.  Anyone with more brains that gallstone understands that "going in" as you recommended in an earlier post, would result in a bloodbath.  Go in and arrest them was the instruction at Ruby Ridge and Masada.  When I say that you called for a massacre, I do not accuse you of being smart enough to know that's what you called for.  But haste makes human paste in these situations.

Sure, blm personel lives deserve hight consideration that trespassing gunmen.  But my proposal, cut the power, freeze them out, then arrest them, is safer for everyone.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 15, 2016, 02:12:13 PM
While I think "wait them out" is a good plan, choosing not to enforce some laws seems to generate a lot of criticism for a certain high profile someone.

Choosing not to enforce what laws?  What law is there requiring an immediate raid?  A competent executive will time the arrests to minimize risk and loss of life.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 15, 2016, 02:17:58 PM
That a riddle Pete?  A joke?

I don't know.   What laws?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 15, 2016, 02:30:57 PM
I wasn't being rhetorical.  Trying to understand what you were referring to in that sentence.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 15, 2016, 02:39:04 PM
MY comment, was a barb at all the anti-Obama crowd (I rank you among them).  Part of his immigration policy (or at least a frequent criticism of it) is to just choose not to aggressively enforce laws.  It was an example of dark humor, and I thought another way to illustrate that this situation really can be used as a lightning rod for pretty much any topic either directly or by pointing out hypocrisy.

However, you instead interpret it (despite my totally contrary qualifying lead sentence) as a call to act with all haste and against logic to storm the gates.  Suggesting not only that I think it's a good plan but that I somehow suggested they were legally obliged to do just that.

So rather than dignifying that with the usual "Pete, you are putting words in my mouth" that others seem to favor, I decided to be a smartass in my reply.

Does that sufficiently explain things and squeeze every attempt at wittiness or humor out of the conversation?

To be even less fun, Pete, you seem to WANT any liberal leaning individual to demonstrate the bloodlust you are talking about.  I agree that it exists but you are acting like you want to paint the whole party with that brush and it's disturbing.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 15, 2016, 02:55:02 PM
I know you don't think it's a good plan.  My response is that it's also not required by law.

I don't have a problem with Obama so much as his worshippers, and don't count you among them.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 15, 2016, 09:58:12 PM
Al, it seems your explanation of what you'd like to see amounts to "get them out of there using any means necessary, but try using peaceful methods first." Under the assumption that waving a white flag won't get them to leave, you therefore endorse going in and gunning them down? They have, in fact, stated directly that they won't leave and are willing to die for their cause. It doesn't sound like your white flag strategy is likely to work, which basically means you think they should be taken out. Or am I misreading what you wrote?
I have no idea, it's *your* interpretation ;).  If you think I'm advocating violence and violence must not be used and they won't come out willingly, then you are saying it's ok for them to have done what they did and to do whatever else they want to do.  Or am I misreading you?
Quote
I don't have a problem with Obama so much as his worshippers, and don't count you among them.
You seem to have a bottomless well of ill-will and willful misunderstanding.  I'm waiting for you to reassert that I have a blood lust urge to go in guns ablazing and wipe out them varmints.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 15, 2016, 11:03:59 PM
Al, it seems your explanation of what you'd like to see amounts to "get them out of there using any means necessary, but try using peaceful methods first." Under the assumption that waving a white flag won't get them to leave, you therefore endorse going in and gunning them down? They have, in fact, stated directly that they won't leave and are willing to die for their cause. It doesn't sound like your white flag strategy is likely to work, which basically means you think they should be taken out. Or am I misreading what you wrote?
I have no idea, it's *your* interpretation ;).  If you think I'm advocating violence and violence must not be used and they won't come out willingly, then you are saying it's ok for them to have done what they did and to do whatever else they want to do.  Or am I misreading you?

Not sure if you're being coy or what. I was trying to ask you if I read your statement correctly. Saying that any attempt to understand your comment is just *my* interpretation pretty well throws out the window the notion of communication, does it not? I would appreciate if you could just answer the question about whether you meant that or not. If not then you meant something else; in which case, what? My opinion of whether violence must not be used is immaterial to understand first what you wrote. Once I understand it I can add my opinion to it. Pete has already expressed, for instance, a way of dealing with this non-violently although it could be a slow process.

It also does not follow that declining to use lethal force to deal with these people implies that it's ok for them to have done what they did.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 16, 2016, 03:10:20 AM
Funny thing is that it's traditionally the arch conservative flatulosauruses that talk about police brutality and military like shooting of protesters as "teach them a lesson."  That talk as if extrajudicial punishment was the neatest thing since *censored*able hunting trophies.  But every couple decades the lefties get this itch of their own.

It never occurred to the feds to try to serve that warrant on Ruby Ridge peacefully.  There was a dog sniffing about so they shot the dog.  Then a 14 year old came looking for his dog ... he'd heard the shot, and came with his rifle.  So the feds took him out too.  Couldn't risk the surprise party for his dad.  By the time they got round to the house, the pregnant housewife in the doorway holding a baby looked like an irresistible target...

Wonderful opportunity for white supremacist gun nuts to sympathize with blacks who protest police brutality?  That's awful optimistic.  Anyway that's not what happened.  Oklahoma city happened.  Which in a way was a triumph of progressive social engineering since it was carried out without guns.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 16, 2016, 03:31:10 AM

To be even less fun, Pete, you seem to WANT any liberal leaning individual to demonstrate the bloodlust you are talking about.  I agree that it exists but you are acting like you want to paint the whole party with that brush and it's disturbing.

Nope.  First of all I'm part of the party, and have been for 15 years.  Strong Sanders fan.  Second, if you look back, I've only zinged people on this thread that have used terms like "Double Standards" to describe the Ammon Bundy standoff.  I've explained why I think that is death-dealing bullcrap. 

I credit Barack Obama's administration for being smarter than his dumb-ass worshippers who say that his only flaw is being too patient with those who stubbornly refuse to bow down and worship him.  I credit Barack Obama for being a better crisis leader than Bill Clinton and for picking subordinates less bloodthirsty than Janet Reno.

What do you want from me, "Hail Barry Full of Grace"?

Not all Democrats or lefties are so stupid as to think that this is an issue of double standards.  A slow safe approach in this situation is protocol, since sending in the troops is something we only do when there's a breach of the peace, when people are in danger, etc.  Unless that post is a secret chemical weapons depot, there's no reason to get them out that's worth putting Fed agents at risk.  And when you consider the history of incidents like Ruby Ridge and Oklahoma City, that's all the more reason to avoid a stupid unnecessary shootout.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 16, 2016, 03:43:04 AM
"MY comment, was a barb at all the anti-Obama crowd (I rank you among them).  Part of his immigration policy (or at least a frequent criticism of it) is to just choose not to aggressively enforce laws."

Evidently you don't have any idea who the hell you are talking to.  Were you not on the forum in 2009 when I was talking about my clients with immigration concerns?  One of my clients, a Mexican married to a US citizen, three kids with her plus raising and supporting two of her kids from a previous marriage. One of the daughters was dying of cancer.  At one point they changed his jail, refused to let him see me, his attorney, for 24 hours while they deprived him of food, water, and sleep until he agreed to sign away his rights to contest his deportation.  And the Admin that I tried to appeal it to said that none of that was a "HUMANITARIAN CONSIDERATION."  If you think for one moment that I'm upset with Obama for not being vigorous ENOUGH on immigration, you are ... wrong.

Wrong.

WRONG.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Athelstan on January 16, 2016, 05:14:56 AM
Apologies for not finding the right quote but the Peterloo Massacre, in England, was mentioned so I thought I’d butt in.

The Manchester Yeomanry that first charged the peaceful protest meeting held at St Peter’s Field (Peterloo), August 1819, were in fact the Militia. The Militia was not popular among the dispossessed of Britain, being seen as a tool of the Government and vested interest. No mill worker could afford the equipment or the unpaid time for training needed to belong to the Militia in the 19th Century.

The Peterloo Massacre was used by others to preach the idea of non-violent protest. Something used in later political struggles in Britain although perhaps not as a Foreign Policy. In the year of Revolutions (1848) the Chartists adopted non-violence to press their claims for Parliamentary Reform. So successful was this non-violent action that Britain’s 1848 revolution turned into something like a picnic.

The Militia in Britain are seen as the oppressors of Liberty whereas, I guess, in the US the Militia are seen by some as the supporters of Liberty. This might affect our different positions on gun control. I suppose the US, Britain and Canada all have their Militia Myths.

Far from being a political Left/Right split over the issue of gun control in the UK it is more of a Town/Country (i.e. Rural) split.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 16, 2016, 06:33:57 AM
Quote
Not sure if you're being coy or what. I was trying to ask you if I read your statement correctly. Saying that any attempt to understand your comment is just *my* interpretation pretty well throws out the window the notion of communication, does it not? I would appreciate if you could just answer the question about whether you meant that or not.
I don't know how to clarify further.  I did see that one of the occupiers was arrested for theft after taking a government vehicle into the nearby town to buy groceries.  If they can talk them into surrendering or blockading anyone else from entering the compound, this might all end fairly quickly and peacefully.  There are two fairly obvious problems with the current situation that increase the urgency to get it resolved:

1. They are illegally occupying federal land and committing other crimes while present. They have no rights that endow them with that privilege.  Why should armed criminals who have committed many crimes be treated with deference?

2. They are zealots who believe they are acting in accordance with God's commands.  That raises the risk that they would, like fanatics in other religions and cultures, prefer to go out in a blaze of glory to provoke a wider violent conflagration.

The problem for everyone who is not one of the occupiers is that not that our laws are being tested, but that their willingness to submit to our laws and our determination to enforce them are.  In other words, they are a product of the anti-government fringe elements in our country who believe that they can wave the Constitution in our faces as if it is in itself a weapon while violating its principles at the same time.

To put it yet another way, WE are their hostages because believing in the rule of law somehow has made us powerless.  If the government doesn't end this insurrection soon, more of us will be taken hostage at other locations.  If that happens the parallels and similarities between such "home-grown" groups and foreign ones we look down on will become stronger. 

Violence is the last resort to resolve this situation, but the situation needs to be resolved sooner rather than later before others take their cue from the lack of an effective response.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 16, 2016, 11:33:01 AM
Apologies for not finding the right quote but the Peterloo Massacre, in England, was mentioned so I thought I’d butt in.

The Manchester Yeomanry that first charged the peaceful protest meeting held at St Peter’s Field (Peterloo), August 1819, were in fact the Militia. The Militia was not popular among the dispossessed of Britain, being seen as a tool of the Government and vested interest. No mill worker could afford the equipment or the unpaid time for training needed to belong to the Militia in the 19th Century.

The Peterloo Massacre was used by others to preach the idea of non-violent protest. Something used in later political struggles in Britain although perhaps not as a Foreign Policy. In the year of Revolutions (1848) the Chartists adopted non-violence to press their claims for Parliamentary Reform. So successful was this non-violent action that Britain’s 1848 revolution turned into something like a picnic.

The Militia in Britain are seen as the oppressors of Liberty whereas, I guess, in the US the Militia are seen by some as the supporters of Liberty. This might affect our different positions on gun control. I suppose the US, Britain and Canada all have their Militia Myths.

Far from being a political Left/Right split over the issue of gun control in the UK it is more of a Town/Country (i.e. Rural) split.

The difference is that the militia that cut up women and children with Sabers at Peterloo were operating under color of law and were not prosecuted.  (My masters Thesis was on William Hazlitt so my sources may be a tad biased against George IV and his toadies, so feel free to correct, Athelstan). A better analogy for the militia at Peterloo would be our weekend warriors, the National Guard. The US groups called "militia" today have no legal equivalent in Great Britain.  Private clubs with no color of law.  And no, they aren't popular.  The only disagreement here is between those who are willing to treat them as ordinary nonviolent criminals so long as they don't do anything violent, and those like Al, who talk as if not creating a butch/Sundance shootout situation constitutes some sort of special white "privilege" and "deference."

"They have no rights that endow them with that privilege.  Why should armed criminals who have committed many crimes be treated with deference?"

Al, your false insistence that Obama is treating these guys with "deference" as if they were "privileged" over other protesting groups, is either cynically calculated to inspire violence, or as irresponsible as a human being can be without being critical reckless.  You are standing outside a movie theater door and screaming fire at a street lamp.  Than heavens Ornery is not a big crowded theater.  In another venue you could have provoked violence with these death dealing falsehoods.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 16, 2016, 11:47:10 AM
AI's last post said a lot of what I was going to, better, as far as why "doing nothing" is bull*censored*, but that doesn't mean "go in guns blazing". 

Quote
Wonderful opportunity for white supremacist gun nuts to sympathize with blacks who protest police brutality?  That's awful optimistic.
No, it's just dumb.  And not what people expect to happen.  But if you wanted to show a culture of "use force in the face of any questioning of authority" both sides COULD use the events of the other for their own argument.   If that was the narrative you wanted to push.  So even action, as well as failure to act is fodder for potential trouble down the road.

The whole situation is death-dealing bullcrap.  Labeling aspects of this situation as double standards strips away context.  You see that loss of context as premeditated.  I think SOME people are doing that.  Most of them however have just been trained to not give a *censored* about context.  They want the catchy character limited tweet, the topical meme with a funny picture on it that they can share.  They want to read the headline and go "I knew it!" and probably never bother clicking the link.  But that's OK, it was probably just a 5 page load click bait to say nothing of substance anyway, if it was even related to the headline. 

I could care less if you are a tried and true Democrat that just has an amazing amount of disdain for Obama or Hillary and can't help but bash anyone who refuses to say at least one bad thing about them.  But to answer your question, I did miss your anecdote when you discussed it previously.  I run hot and cold on my participation here.  Guess that was a cold week.  The only reason I brought up immigration at all was to make the point that one of his exercising of executive power was to decline to deport some illegal immigrants.  I was drawing an (apparently bloodthirsty) parallel to not attempting to enforce the law.  I wasn't implying anything about your opinion of Obama's immigration policy or even that this criticism of him, or of the federal officers in this standoff is a fair one.

Quote
Al, your false insistence that Obama is treating these guys with "deference" as if they were "privileged" over other protesting groups, is either cynically calculated to inspire violence, or as irresponsible as a human being can be without being critical reckless.
Obama's fault huh?  He's calling the shots here?  The president called them up in the field and said, "WOAH, don't start shooting, these guys are white and if we make martyrs out of them it will totally blow Hillary and my grand vision for the next 9 years!" 

Luckily we have AI, myself and others demanding the president personally green light an immediate assault leaving no survivors that would make Tom Clancy go, "Damn I wish I thought of that, that was some action packed patriotic *censored* right there!"

That about it?  The way I see it we are all on the same page yet partisanship or dislike of specific politicians is making us jump at shadows.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 16, 2016, 11:49:08 AM
"
To put it yet another way, WE are their hostages because believing in the rule of law somehow has made us powerless"

That sounds like sheet head talk.

There's nothing powerless about waiting for them to come out for groceries.  Fortunately Obama seems to understand that you don't lose control of yourself to gain management of a situation.  I think Sanders will fill those shoes well.  Not as confident about Clinton. 

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 16, 2016, 11:55:47 AM
Pull your head out, DW.  I am the one defending Obama here.  Al is the one attacking Obama's policy even though he doesn't admit it's Obama's policy.

I don't think that Obama is being restrained because these guys are white.  Don't put that into my mouth.

Sarcasm doesn't work well when you don't understand what you are responding to.  Unless you are intentionally playing a Homer Simpson.  I can't tell.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 16, 2016, 11:59:36 AM
I don't think Obama has anything to do with this...
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 16, 2016, 12:06:27 PM
"Obama's fault huh?  He's calling the shots here?  The president called them up in the field and said, "WOAH, don't start shooting, these guys are white and if we make martyrs out of them it will totally blow Hillary and my grand vision for the next 9 years!" 

Isn't that more or less what Al is saying?

 Myself, I think Obama is making the right call (wait and arrest when they come out) for the right reasons (because this isn't a situation where lethal force is justified). 

This isn't the first time that I have praised the Obama admin for acting correctly.  You have mischaracterized me, while I at worst have misunderstood a few things you said and misunderstood sarcasm over the internet.

As far as judging YOU, Politically you are closer to my own views than anyone else in ornery's history, including my own Alternate avatars. So I'm amused that you think I would demonize you.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 16, 2016, 12:12:58 PM
I don't think Obama has anything to do with this...

I find myself in the position of defending Obama against your charge of incompetence against him.  I recognize that you may not be aware that you have so charged him, but I don't want to insult your intelligence by explaining it to you. 

Why don't you explain it?  What does Truman's buck stops here aphorism mean with respect to Obama's oversight in this situation?  What's the best thing he could do as president at this point?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 16, 2016, 12:22:47 PM
I have the ridiculous notion that our federal law enforcement officers do not consult with Obama and his press secretary before wiping their ass.  I believe that while they are probably reminded often by their superiors that all eyes are on them and they can't afford any mistakes they do NOT, give a crap what the president thinks.

Now maybe he does micromanage each field agent to that level.  If so, WOW.  I already thought the guy pretty much walks on water but now?  Amazing!

Now, if the SHTF on this one, do I think he will make a statement on how we as a nation need to do more to fight against a gun culture which allows such tragedies to happen?  Yes, yes I do.  Incompetence would be him thinking that from the White House he could or should dictate tactics to the agents on the ground.  As I don't believe he would do that or is doing so, you don't need to defend him.  Is he likely getting sit reps beyond watching it unfold on the news?  Of course.   

And yes, I'll probably continue making this more and more absurd or Homerish.  Nobody is listening to each other anyway. 

Should we wait for AI to come in and confirm that he does NOT want an action movie blood bath to happen ASAP, preferably with live streamed cams broadcast to TWITCH or Youtube? 

Your persecution fetish has given you a blind spot.  That or your obsession with Obama.  I'm not sure which drives this particular bus.

The BEST thing he could do, is stay out of it.  I'll concede he does have the (awful) habit of commenting on unfolding events so I can't be sure he will "do nothing".
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 16, 2016, 12:39:58 PM
And yes, I know declining to comment on unfolding events can be just as damning as saying the wrong thing, or to be even more cynical, failing to monopolize on an opportunity to push an agenda.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 16, 2016, 12:58:19 PM
Quote
Pull your head out, DW.  I am the one defending Obama here.  Al is the one attacking Obama's policy even though he doesn't admit it's Obama's policy.
I feel moved to speculate that you are doing two physically impossible things with your body at the same time.  You aren't actually defending Obama because he's not an actor, unless you think he runs around with a whistle and stopwatch directing every activity the Executive works on.  But, if you want to make that claim about yourself then allow me to make the same claim about myself.  I have no idea what that means, but that really doesn't matter in this kind of discussion.  Just call me a conservative, I guess, but a liberal one. Hope that clarifies. 
Quote
Isn't that more or less what Al is saying?
I haven't (as yet) raised their whiteness as an issue.  It's possible that the government is being overly cautious because these are religious Christian extremists rather than non-whites or non-Christian religious believers, and nobody in government wants more religious nuts to trek across the tundra to join these wingnuts in support of the JOP (Jesus Olde Party) they think they represent.
Quote
The BEST thing he could do, is stay out of it.  I'll concede he does have the (awful) habit of commenting on unfolding events so I can't be sure he will "do nothing".
Perhaps his greatest flaw, albeit yet another one driven by an impulse to give voice to his conscience.  Obama is an interesting example of a President with a strong moral sense who does not seem to rely on his religious feelings to find his compass.  That he doesn't wear them on his sleeve gives evidence (by absence) to religious conservatives to speculate that he is a Muslim or even the anti-Christ.  Like these wackos in Oregon, they think he should bow down to what they do.  What a country!
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 16, 2016, 07:15:10 PM
Quote from: D.W. link=topic=31.msg883

(Snip a few off base and fortunate uncharacteristic motive inferences)

The BEST thing he could do, is stay out of it.  ".
Mostly agreed. The best he can do is to SEEM like he isn't involved be having the Pres respond gives too much attention to these guys.  But you can bet he's having someone he trusts monitor the situation.  This is good crisis leadership, and there's no reason to not credit him.

I don't blame him for Louisiana because there was state sovereignty that needed to be respected.  I don't blame him for Bengali because Mrs Clinton was an unavoidable political appointee. But here, this is a pure federal domestic issue with a relatively fresh unblooded Attorney General.  It's on federal land in a protest aimed at the fed, with federal agents on the scene.  The buck stops at the president on this. He might not be calling the shots, but you can bet that he's having it watched in case someone starts to call the wrong shots.  Anyway, I am quite pleased at his handling of this so far.  Go Obama.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 16, 2016, 07:21:07 PM
"Just call me a conservative, I guess, but a liberal one. Hope that clarifies"

It does, to me.  Some time when you aren't pissed at me or reading me sideways, let's chat about that and see if you mean what I think you mean.  (Question authority, contemplate every new thing and hold onto that which is good).
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Athelstan on January 17, 2016, 05:25:42 AM


The difference is that the militia that cut up women and children with Sabers at Peterloo were operating under color of law and were not prosecuted.  (My masters Thesis was on William Hazlitt so my sources may be a tad biased against George IV and his toadies, so feel free to correct, Athelstan). A better analogy for the militia at Peterloo would be our weekend warriors, the National Guard. The US groups called "militia" today have no legal equivalent in Great Britain.  Private clubs with no color of law.  And no, they aren't popular.  The only disagreement here is between those who are willing to treat them as ordinary nonviolent criminals so long as they don't do anything violent, and those like Al, who talk as if not creating a butch/Sundance shootout situation constitutes some sort of special white "privilege" and "deference."


I’m sure you know that the Kent State Massacre was forty-six years ago and I also believe you know something good eventually came out of that tragic event.  I hold no brief for any 19th Century Government or Monarch.

My political persuasion is that in the English Civil War I would have been a Parliamentarian and would have approved, if anyone had asked me, of the execution of Charles I. The problem with that little episode is that no one had a clear idea of what was going to replace him. Not the last time that’ll happen. I believe some, probably Hamilton, accused Jefferson of wanting to become a Cromwell.

There is no doubt that political repression followed Peterloo just as it had followed the the Government’s insecurity after the American and French Revolutions. The person blamed by people at the time, including Shelley in his famous poem and I believe Hazlitt (of whom I know little), was Lord Castlereagh, although he does seem to have his fans both sides of the pond.

A person more of my ilk, although I’m not sure I’d like him if I met him, was Thomas Paine. He wrote concerning self-defence “a man has a natural right to redress himself whenever he is injured, but the full exercise of this, as a natural right, would be dangerous to society, because it admits him a judge in his own cause.” – Thomas Paine – A Political Life – John Keane.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 17, 2016, 09:04:37 AM
The "magnet effect (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/us/standoff-in-oregon-attracts-supporters-bearing-disparate-grievances.html?emc=edit_th_20160117&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=869778)" is now operating in Oregon.
Quote
One of the people who have joined the Bundy family on a federal wildlife sanctuary in an arid patch of Oregon is an avowed anti-Semite from Ohio. One is an anti-Islamic ideologue from Phoenix.

Another is an online radio host — also from Ohio — who uses terms like “Obamislamistan.”

Some are militant gun-rights activists, and one is a man who has declared himself to be a judge and plans to convene a “citizens’ grand jury” in order to put the government on trial.
...
Some are members of the so-called Patriot movement, an umbrella effort of antigovernment activists that includes groups like the Oath Keepers, an organization of law enforcement officers and military veterans, and the 3 Percent of Idaho, which focuses on the Second Amendment and derives its name from the supposed 3 percent of the colonial population that took up arms against the British.
...
The local authorities, as well as many local residents, have made it clear that they would like them all to leave.

At first, the logic behind the conflict seemed coherent: The Bundy brothers, sons of the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who made national news two years ago by facing down the government over cattle-grazing fees, wanted the federal government to turn its land holdings over to private citizens and local control. In recent days, however, the protest has metastasized and started drawing a motley cast of fellow travelers.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 17, 2016, 01:58:12 PM
do you suppose this motley group would not be there if the government had gone in blasting?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 17, 2016, 04:58:48 PM
do you suppose this motley group would not be there if the government had gone in blasting?
Nobody is stepping up to the plate, so the situation is festering and can only get worse.  At this point I don't understand why the feds aren't actively trying to resolve the situation.  The local police are completely overwhelmed and can't do anything more than direct traffic.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 17, 2016, 05:29:09 PM
do you suppose this motley group would not be there if the government had gone in blasting?
Nobody is stepping up to the plate, so the situation is festering and can only get worse.

I don't want to misinterpret you as you said I did before, so to be more precise,

1. What precisely would constitute "stepping up to the plate" in your view?

2. Whose responsibility do you think it is to "step up to the plate." ? Who is the ultimate responsible authority?

3. Why did you not actually answer the question in the post you cited in your last reply?

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 17, 2016, 07:44:24 PM
I'd like to pose this question as well:

The thread topic began as a question about gun rights and whether people trust the government (or certain people in it) to not cross certain boundaries in the long term. This fear of government 'coming for your guns' is perhaps part of the larger issue of government encroachment into private life and whether it ought to be the place of the federal government to dictate how society 'should look' and how people in local communities should have to behave. Some view it as the state's role to do this, while others no doubt would prefer it to be even more local.

One of the chief complaints the Bundy's are issuing is about government encroachment in land ownership in the west and how, because it has assumed such a large jurisdiction over much of the land out West, the government is in a position to potentially bully people. The Bundy's in particular along with other ranchers have had trouble with the Feds in the past with what they see as bullying, in part the attempt to bully them off of their land (the 'land grab') for the purposes of using that space for larger projects or to add to the nature reserve the Feds maintain under the BLM. The Bundy's, despite doing so against the wishes of the Hammonds, are protesting what they see as the federal government bullying the Hammonds and using their massive power to push them around.

With the situation being what it is now, and some ranchers and militia people occupying a federal compound in order to protest government bullying, would it not play right into their claim for the Feds to go right in and bust heads? This question doesn't even presuppose that their claim is completely accurate, but if they're objecting to federal government pushing people around, would it not be quite ironic for the solution to this situation to be to bring power to bear and swiftly end it by pushing them around? I do not endorse illegal actions when I say this, but for those proposing the government must act swiftly to end this (whatever that means, which Pete has asked about a few times) does this strategy not bear the risk of making the ranchers' complaints look legitimate? In fact, does it not bear the risk of proving that their complaints actually are legitimate? The Oregon fire chief, who just resigned after decades on the job on account of how the government is handling the situation (he also alleges that he exposed FBI agents provocateurs among the militia there), has said that in that area the ranchers and local government all knew each other and were used to dealing with matters locally and without major problems. They could solve it amicably for the most part. He says he knew the Hammonds and the Bundys, and whatever problems they had with the government or the government had with them (it went both ways) was solved locally but people who knew each other. The idea of some overarching federal government coming in to dictate terms, prosecute people, and push its weight around was antithetical to how they wanted problems there to be solved.

It's hard to say for sure whether there's real merit to the arguments made by the Bundy's, and also by the ex-fire chief, but if the Feds did go in and end this fast, it certainly wouldn't go very far towards demonstrating that they were wrong. Sure, the federal government can use brute force easily, but does the fact that it can mean it should? In his response to my question of whether going in guns blazing was the best solution, Al insisted I wasn't listening to what he was saying and reiterated that a non-violent approach would be better. Maybe I did miss his point, but if non-violence is the best way then what would that entail, as an actual plan? I would assert that these people won't back down 'swiftly', even though in the long-term they might. If a swift solution is 'required' and if going in shooting isn't the plan, what is the plan? Pete's proposed solution would be non-violent but would be slower. If that's too slow for some, and if the ranchers won't back down anytime soon, does that mean going in shooting? How would such an action affect those Americans who do view the federal government as being a bully that tries to control everyone?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 17, 2016, 08:20:48 PM
Quote
1. What precisely would constitute "stepping up to the plate" in your view?
They're criminals, so this is a law enforcement problem.  Give them an order to leave the premises, with the implication that they will be held liable for damages and privacy violations they committed. 
Quote
2. Whose responsibility do you think it is to "step up to the plate." ? Who is the ultimate responsible authority?
It's federal land, so federal authorities.
Quote
3. Why did you not actually answer the question in the post you cited in your last reply?
I don't know what question you are referring to.

Fenring, I'm not really following the argument you're making.  These are federal lands, so the federal government has jurisdiction.  Do you think otherwise?  Why do you think the government managing the land is "bullying"? 
Quote
t's hard to say for sure whether there's real merit to the arguments made by the Bundy's, and also by the ex-fire chief, but if the Feds did go in and end this fast, it certainly wouldn't go very far towards demonstrating that they were wrong. Sure, the federal government can use brute force easily, but does the fact that it can mean it should? In his response to my question of whether going in guns blazing was the best solution, Al insisted I wasn't listening to what he was saying and reiterated that a non-violent approach would be better. Maybe I did miss his point, but if non-violence is the best way then what would that entail, as an actual plan? I would assert that these people won't back down 'swiftly', even though in the long-term they might. If a swift solution is 'required' and if going in shooting isn't the plan, what is the plan? Pete's proposed solution would be non-violent but would be slower. If that's too slow for some, and if the ranchers won't back down anytime soon, does that mean going in shooting? How would such an action affect those Americans who do view the federal government as being a bully that tries to control everyone?
Not my bailiwick how they should do it.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 18, 2016, 12:57:24 AM
Fenring, I'm not really following the argument you're making.  These are federal lands, so the federal government has jurisdiction.  Do you think otherwise?  Why do you think the government managing the land is "bullying"?

It's pretty easy to say that since it's government's land they have jurisdiction, when an enormous amount of the land in the West is theirs. In some cases the majority of territory in an entire state their jurisdiction. When you've made it your business to acquire most of the free land in the state it sort of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy to predict that problems that occur will have a large chance of occurring on Federal land. Especially so since the origin of the current situation had to do with government land encroaching on private land, and private landowners like the Hammonds being refused access to watering holes and grazing land that they'd been using for years in full cooperation with the state. That doesn't given anyone license to break the law, but it does mean that the situation was allowed to metastasize to the point where either the private landowners would have to back off and give in, or ignore the Federal rules. Be bullied or become a bully. The whole issue of government encroachment in principle, according to these ranchers, has become a physical reality.

I find it strange that you should imply that it's by definition impossible for the government to act like a bully while managing its own land. What if that land is being made to expand? What if an effort is made to get ranchers off that land to that end? In the history of private landowners sitting on land the government wants for development, have you never heard of the difficulty in telling the powerful group "no"?


Quote
Not my bailiwick how they should do it.

Strange that you should call for swift action but not have a sense of what his action should be. What if the Feds have the same indecision? Since you say you don't want them to go in guns blazing, what if there is no other way to get them out without bloodshed? In that case would you be amenable to agreeing that waiting them out is the better way?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 18, 2016, 07:36:24 AM
Quote
I find it strange that you should imply that it's by definition impossible for the government to act like a bully while managing its own land.
What confused me (and still does a bit) is that you are making an argument that the government *is* a bully, but framing it as a hypothetical.  Speak for yourself and say what you think should happen. 
Quote
Strange that you should call for swift action but not have a sense of what his action should be. What if the Feds have the same indecision? Since you say you don't want them to go in guns blazing, what if there is no other way to get them out without bloodshed? In that case would you be amenable to agreeing that waiting them out is the better way?
I haven't specified tactics, because I don't know how they would or should do it.  But I've been clear that they should try the least confrontational possible approach first, which might sound like a request for them to vacate, but increase the force of that request if they don't.  If they absolutely refuse to leave, then the government might have to come in with what I might call "defensive force", still hoping to avoid gunfire.  Smoke bombs or tear gas might accomplish that without anyone being killed or seriously injured.  Real violence would be the last resort.  In any case, they shouldn't have taken over the building, shouldn't have misappropriated property and should give themselves up.  I've said all this before, so without laying out the actual details of the effort I don't know what more I can tell you.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 18, 2016, 07:46:05 PM
"These are federal lands, so the federal government has jurisdiction.  Do you think otherwise?  Why do you think the government managing the land is "bullying"? 

Does bullying to you mean acting outside one's legal jurisdiction?  When cops are accused of brutality and unnecessary force, the issue is not "jurisdiction."

I hope that Fenring does not answer your last question on this thread because that threatens to derail the core discussion here re handling of the crisis. Until those who use terms like "done standard" to contrast protests that pose a direct danger to public safety to protests that pose so such dangers, I would not want the scope of the discussion expanded to enable even more obfuscation.

"In any case, they shouldn't have taken over the building, shouldn't have misappropriated property and should give themselves up.  "

Has anyone said otherwise?  It seems like obfuscation to raise that objection to what has been said on this thread. Should haves are court arguments.  Not lawful justifications for extrajudicial violence.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 18, 2016, 07:49:03 PM
"Smoke bombs or tear gas might accomplish that without anyone being killed or seriously injured."

Fortunately Obama's admin has smarter appointees than Janet Reno and lessons of Waco have not been forgotten.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 18, 2016, 08:47:35 PM
Pete, just so I can consider whether to take your advice or not, which question of Al's are you recommending I not answer?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 19, 2016, 10:02:22 AM
How about a simple blockade?  Or are they getting their "mail" by sending out woodland ninjas out to the nearby villages the feds are ill equipped to stop?

How about disabling power and communications?  It shouldn't be hard to identify which cells belong to those inside and getting a court order to disable them through their carrier.

If you are going to make it a passive siege and "wait them out" that's fine.

Maybe they are doing this?  I get the impression these guys are on social media rallying others to their cause and asking for support and or food...

There is a large gap between what (the media gives the impression) is happening, and opening fire.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 19, 2016, 11:12:43 AM
Ok, the steps:

1. The government force-feeds late night comedy shows into the building.  This leads half of them to leave in humiliation.
2. The government delivers a rose-scented letter requesting their presence somewhere else.  The rest leave after shaving and bathing for the first time since they arrived.  The BLM puts a sign on the door after declaring the preserve a Mormon Free Zone.
3. On the off-chance neither of those approaches work, they cut the utilities and set up a perimeter blockade 25 feet from the building.  No one goes in or out unless they swear allegiance to the Constitution.  Their copies are probably marked up, so fresh ones would be given to them and time to read would be allocated.
4. If *that* doesn't work, send in a dozen cooked 20-pound turkeys and dressing (some would prefer stuffing) and side dishes.  After the tryptophan kicks in, the BLM goes in with knives and forks and finishes off the food.  Another contingent of BLM agents then goes in and extracts all the comatose bodies.
5. After all of those approaches are exhausted, they may have to resort to doing something reasonable, like demanding they leave or be arrested.
6. When they leave, arrest them.

No shots fired, the only animals hurt were the turkeys, but they knew that was coming anyway.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 19, 2016, 12:02:13 PM
"Why do you think the government managing the land is "bullying"? 

So far, when you and I have argued for an approach that takes into account the circumstances (no lives presently at risk, abandoned govt facility, etc) we are accused of going easy because of religious and racial irrelevancies which some perversely construe as the main "issues" at play.

Any discussion of the merits of the protest draws in another irrelevancy.  The question seems designed to discredit you as a sympathist.

Is the question I fear would plunge the debate into further obfuscation.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 19, 2016, 12:53:21 PM
YOU are not being accused of going easy because of religious and racial irrelevancies.  I have suggested that consideration to how others will react, because of the religion and race of the perpetrators, is being taken into account and is making the handling of this situation proceed differently than it otherwise would.

Fail to act, and you send a message that the government has no teeth and no stomach to force the issue if someone stands up to them.  If they have media attention and bloodshed seems likely, they will back down; at least long enough to "inspire" others.

Act too aggressively, and you send a message that the government is tyrannical and bloodthirsty.  They "inspire" others to resist this unjustified slaughter or bullying (depending on how it turns out).

This has nothing at all to do with an abandoned piece of property they are denying access to by nature lovers.  This is about slapping the microphone out of the hand of nutjobs promoting anarchy or at least spitting in the face of our laws.  That doesn't mean they deserve death, but it certainly means you need to resolve the situation.

Maybe that resolution is fencing the whole thing off and charging admission to liberals to come and see the caged authentic gun nut (but totally harmless) delusional insurrectionists for a season or two until shame and mockery does what bullhorns and finger wagging couldn't.  I don't know. 

It's the "It's no big deal", "no danger at all", "OMG another Waco in the making" that gets me riled up.  Sometimes being a grownup means the children think you are the bad guy for awhile.  You can't let them burn down the house hoping their tantrum blows over quickly and things go back to normal.  When someone is where they are not suppose to be and are resisting arrest THEY are not the victim.  When they DARE you to start something and say they will fight back, that gets people killed a lot of the time.  Yet here, kid gloves.

Maybe you think this should be the standard.  A reasonable suggestion really.  But your outrage that this isn't hypocrisy or a double standard is pathetic.  But I guess as long as you frame the only other option as a slaughter by the feds we can ignore that.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 19, 2016, 12:56:49 PM
The very premise of federal land "belonging to the federal government" and therefore the People having no interest in how is administrated, is anti-American.  That's precisely the sort of I am the state bulcrap that the founders bled and died to avoid.  I hope that Al simply misspoke, didn't think through what he was saying, etc.  Al's tendency to say such atrocious things is why I in the past thought that he was one of G3's sock puppets.  Certainly if Obama ever said anything so horrible, it would make Ammon Bundy look like Nathan Hale. 

But having been assured that Al is not a sock puppet, I must assume that it's just misspelling when his posts come off like a Faux News straw man.

I hope and believe that Al at some level grasps the social contract of a living Republic.

Fenring correctly brings up the aggravating factor of federal adverse occupation of western states. the extreme proportion of land occupied by the feds in lands settled by Mormons (more than 92% of Utah, for example). 

Ranchers are getting crushed. Grain prices are through the roof because of the government's useless and poisonous ethanol requirements. To take this moment to bankrupt ranchers by raising grazing fees as well, is hateful when the Admin fails to give the ranchers any other alternatives.  Any group of generational family businesses, if squeezed to extinction between two arbitrarily enacted federal laws, would respond with some degree of lawbreaking. 

I actually agree with the administration that we should discourage cattle raising because of the ecological footprint.  But it does nothing to fight global warming if we just start importing beef.  Also, the administration should (and I think will) offer some sort of program encouraging transition of cattle ranchers to some sort of lower footprint livestock such as goats or ratites (ostrich, emu, etc).  In the past, Obama has demonstrated an uncanny ability for that kind of raprochment. 

Obviously such would not satisfy the extremists and should not be offered as a mediation to them.  Perhaps better to propose it after Ammon etc are in custody.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 19, 2016, 01:00:29 PM
Oh...  I missed that their cause was just.  All makes sense now.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 19, 2016, 01:05:40 PM
Black Lives Matter has trespassed on private property and blocked access to public areas in so doing, such as the Mall of America:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/23/black-lives-matter-organizers-protest-mall-of-america

DW, according to your double standard theory, should these protesters have been arrested as well? It seems more like they were given a wide berth and steps were taken not to deal with their non-violent but illegal presence in the mall. They had been threatened with arrest but they ignored the warning. Should they have been subjected to smoke bombs and tear has as Al has suggested for the ranchers, since they were breaking the law and occupying an area they weren't supposed to?

In that case it looks like the government took the same approach they're taking now: they decided against using force in a situation with no clear and present threat despite laws being broken. In both cases the occupation was a protest against something, and as I see it the only difference is that the ranchers are armed, and that some people don't respect the content of their protest. Setting aside the latter point for the moment (although I think it's influencing people's opinions) to what extent is their being armed grounds to go in and use force against them? If them being armed gives the government grounds to use force, does that mean that being legally armed in America effectively means you are more of a target for government force?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 19, 2016, 01:27:49 PM
Quote
DW, according to your double standard theory, should these protesters have been arrested as well?
This question doesn't work.  Let me tweak it a bit, brake it up, then I'll answer.

Q:  Would you (DW) apply the law equally and arrest both groups acting illegally?
A:  Yes

Q:  Would you (DW) arrest protesters intentionally disrupting day to day activities of lawful citizens if the protesters refused to allow others rightful and unmolested use of those spaces and not impede or break traffic laws?   
A:  Yes, but I also wouldn't expect to be reelected. 

Q:  Doesn't the fact that the BLM protesters were NOT all carted off and arrested discredit your double standard theory?
A:  Anecdotal but yes, yes it does.

Quote
Should they have been subjected to smoke bombs and tear has as Al has suggested for the ranchers
Are they "claiming" the mall concourse?  If so, are you not just dragging them out in cuffs because they have firearms and you believe they will use them should anyone attempt to arrest them?  The answer is, MAYBE.  But they weren't bunkering down and preparing for a siege or daring cops to try arresting them or threatening or implying violent resistance. 

I'm not a bastard because I apply my point of view or ideals to one side.  I'm a bastard because I don't care what side someone is on.  Also, because I'm just an internet poster and don't need to care about how I'm polling or how this will play on the local or national news.  That helps too.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 19, 2016, 01:42:31 PM
Oh...  I missed that their cause was just.  All makes sense now.

Who said that their cause is just?  That's exactly the sort of obfuscation that I was warning Fenring about.

Like Black Lives Matter ... Ammon & co have some legitimate grievances ... and yet many of the things they say is complete crap.  (e.g. the "unarmed" folks that BLM complains about getting shot who actually were struggling with a cop for that cop's gun when they were shot).  But whether their cause is just is irrelevant to how the government should deal with an armed incursion into an abandoned government facility in the middle of nowhere with no hostages.

Martin Luther King's cause was completely just and yet that didn't prevent courts that were sympathetic to his cause from enforcing the law against him when he violated a court order.  In fact his arguable compliance with a court order at Selma was part of his victory.

If Ammon & co were using this stand to rally folks to do war against the United States then it might be appropriate to make a more forceful response.  But unless they were united with some group that's already considered at war with the USA (e.g. ISIS or Al Qaeda) a justification for violence would have the effect of treating them as an insurrection.

There's a time and place for declaring a group insurrectionists.  Historically the feds were too pussyfooted when it came to the KKK who IMO should have been declared traitors and insurrectionists.  OTOH there are other times when the feds declared insurrection when there wasn't one.  Take the so called Mormon rebellion of the 19th century where 1/3 of the US army marched on Salt Lake City to quell a rebellion that didn't exist when the troops set out.  Or the Ghost dancers.

Treating this group as a rebellion is what they want.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 19, 2016, 01:42:47 PM
Quote
to what extent is their being armed grounds to go in and use force against them?
This again, is IMO too sloppily worded for me to answer.

Q:  Does being armed, by itself, grounds to take any action? 
A:  No.

Q:  Does being armed while committing a crime grounds to alter your response to the suspect?
A:  Yes.

Quote
If them being armed gives the government grounds to use force, does that mean that being legally armed in America effectively means you are more of a target for government force?
  See above.  Within that framework, it makes you more at risk because they SHOULD treat you as a threat if you fail to surrender and their priorities should be protecting innocents, themselves, then you. (as an armed suspect)
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 19, 2016, 01:45:31 PM
Quote
Treating this group as a rebellion is what they want.
This has been my point the whole discussion.  They are attempting to craft a no win situation where the government is the bad guy no matter how this turns out.

I'm not suggesting this is something easy to avoid, only that being too cautious with them is not a viable solution.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 19, 2016, 01:49:15 PM
Black Lives Matter has trespassed on private property and blocked access to public areas in so doing, such as the Mall of America:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/23/black-lives-matter-organizers-protest-mall-of-america

DW, according to your double standard theory, should these protesters have been arrested as well? It seems more like they were given a wide berth and steps were taken not to deal with their non-violent but illegal presence in the mall. They had been threatened with arrest but they ignored the warning. Should they have been subjected to smoke bombs and tear has as Al has suggested for the ranchers, since they were breaking the law and occupying an area they weren't supposed to?

In that case it looks like the government took the same approach they're taking now: they decided against using force in a situation with no clear and present threat despite laws being broken. In both cases the occupation was a protest against something, and as I see it the only difference is that the ranchers are armed, and that some people don't respect the content of their protest. Setting aside the latter point for the moment (although I think it's influencing people's opinions) to what extent is their being armed grounds to go in and use force against them? If them being armed gives the government grounds to use force, does that mean that being legally armed in America effectively means you are more of a target for government force?

Hmm. They were legally armed before they set foot in the government building.  Not sure that there is no law against bringing weapons without permission into a govt facility.  There might be laws against brandishing weapons as well.

The only difference if Black Lives Matter had done a protest like this, there would probably be an armed counter-protest by white supremacist groups.  And that really would create a risk of violence.  But I'd argue in that case that tear gas would inflame the situation and the risk.  Best bet would be to arrest the white Supremacists and anyone except maybe a few unarmed reporters coming onto the scene
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 19, 2016, 01:53:26 PM
I'd also add the right to legally own or carry a firearm, from my view, is a contract to do so responsibly and to act within the law.  I believe that by choosing to carry a weapon you are voluntarily submitting yourself to a higher standard.  Failing to live up to that standard (by say, breaking the law) means you will not, and should not, be treated the same as someone else, without a lethal weapon, preforming the same act. 

It is NOT some talisman granting you veto power against Uncle Sam whenever he does something you don't like.  Allowing anyone to treat it as such is a lot more dangerous IMO than the fallout of preventing it.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 19, 2016, 01:56:26 PM
Quote
Treating this group as a rebellion is what they want.
This has been my point the whole discussion.  They are attempting to craft a no win situation where the government is the bad guy no matter how this turns out.

I'm not suggesting this is something easy to avoid, only that being too cautious with them is not a viable solution.

The proper degree of caution and aggression depends on circumstances.  Assuming that Al speaks correctly as to the nuisance factor of dangerous people being lured to the area, it might be better to cut power and communications intermittently and get a warrant to *monitor* all communications coming from that area.  If something suspicious shows up on the tap, then get a warrant to tap the folks being called as well.  Arrest co-conspirators.

I respectfully propose that my suggestions here are NOT more soft-core than anything being done with BLM, or even more soft core than Al's suggestion of tear gas.  I am talking about doing something right now, and the results in the long run are more sweeping.  The only objection I see is that what I suggest isn't violent, reckless, or immediately apparent. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 19, 2016, 01:59:26 PM
I'd also add the right to legally own or carry a firearm, from my view, is a contract to do so responsibly and to act within the law.  I believe that by choosing to carry a weapon you are voluntarily submitting yourself to a higher standard.  Failing to live up to that standard (by say, breaking the law) means you will not, and should not, be treated the same as someone else, without a lethal weapon, preforming the same act. 


I generally agree.  But would you apply this to one of the protesters in the Mall of America, where trespassing was involved?  If some of the protesters had concealed carry licenses and had guns on their person, would that mean they should be prosecuted for gun felonies while other protesters were not charged? 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 19, 2016, 02:03:30 PM
Quote
Treating this group as a rebellion is what they want.
This has been my point the whole discussion.  They are attempting to craft a no win situation where the government is the bad guy no matter how this turns out.


Isn't that what civil rights protesters generally do?

"I'm not suggesting this is something easy to avoid, only that being too cautious with them is not a viable solution."

That begs the question of what actions are "too" cautious neh?  No one is going to call for an approach that is "too" cautious or "too aggressive."  AFAIK we are arguing on the parameters of the goldilocks zone.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 19, 2016, 02:10:41 PM
I'm not sure if ALL misdemeanors while armed are considered felonies.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they are not.  Traffic related for instance aren't.  Some drug charges are.

I already said I think all disruptive protesters should be arrested if they failed to disperse.  How would I ever know one had a concealed carry unless he drew it or flashed it?  (Brandishing, separate charge)  I suppose I could apply open carry to your hypothetical.

I don't THINK that makes trespassing or disturbing the peace a felony.  It may make the police notably more aggressive or suspicious of you and you would be treated differently.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 19, 2016, 02:12:38 PM
Pete:
Quote
AFAIK we are arguing on the parameters of the goldilocks zone.
DW:
Quote
The way I see it we are all on the same page yet partisanship or dislike of specific politicians is making us jump at shadows.
(previous page)
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 19, 2016, 03:16:29 PM
DW, thanks for the answers. I was being a little facetious when I asked about tear gassing the mall protesters, but it was to make a kind of ironic point, which is that it would seem ridiculous to throw smoke bombs at people protesting in a mall, but from an urban liberal standpoint it could seem like a sensible thing to do to 'crazy yahoos with guns.' The operative part of that construction being that urban liberals tend to see rural people like ranchers as 'yahoos' and the very fact that they're armed as an implicit sign that they're nuts. 'What kind of nut needs to run around with a gun?' The kind of preconception of people from that milieu will color one's perception of what's going on. Are they 'crazy yahoos waving guns around'? Or are they 'concerned citizens who chose a wrong course of action to protest what they see as an injustice?' These two phrases may well say the same thing but when deciding how to deal with them the two versions may suggest different approaches. One wants to find a way to come to an agreement with concerned citizens, but one doesn't want crazy yahoos waving guns around to get away with it.

Regarding committing a crime while armed, I think it's better to look at this case by case rather than as a blanket statement. Robbing a store while armed certain changes the nature of the crime in a material way (hence 'armed robbery'), whereas cheating on your taxes while armed is obviously an irrelevant distinction. In this case the ranchers are committing a physical crime, but is their being armed material to the nature of their crime? What they're doing is arguably trespassing, breaking and entering, possibly threatening to commit vandalism or theft, but with no persons around and in a non-vital facility. Did their weapons change their ability to do this, or alter the method of getting into the compound? The one case changed by them being armed is IF the Feds go in with violence it would mean a fire fight, but in any other scenario where violence is not employed then the guns may not figure into it at all. Nevertheless I agree with you in principle that by equipping yourself with legal weapons you do accept using those weapons as legally intended, and so using them 'illegally' does constitute stepping over the line even aside from their other actions.

My questions weren't meant to defend the ranchers or their actions, but rather to suggest that the dim view many hold against them may itself be colored by a kind of double standard where protesting for liberal causes is seen as enlightened but where protesting for conservative or 'yahoo' causes is seen as regressive and boneheaded. I will note that even by intersectionality theory the ranchers are "punching up", even though since they're white men it makes it hard to see them as sympathetic.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 19, 2016, 03:28:59 PM
Protesting that the laws are not being applied equally falls under what I consider a "good cause".  Not liberal or conservative cause.

Protesting that the laws don't apply to you because you were allowed to break them without interference previously, or because the divine said he was cool with it, makes you a "yahoo".  Not liberal or conservative.

Passive resistance and refusing to leave and being dragged off by the law does not erase that you are (may be) breaking a law to make a political point, but is a "legitimate tactic".  Not a liberal or conservative tactic.

Armed resistance and a "try and stop us" attitude makes you a "yahoo" and a threat.  Not a liberal or conservative.

To complete the exercise, replace yahoo with thug.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 19, 2016, 03:39:02 PM
Pete:
Quote
AFAIK we are arguing on the parameters of the goldilocks zone.
DW:
Quote
The way I see it we are all on the same page yet partisanship or dislike of specific politicians is making us jump at shadows.
(previous page)

While I certainly agree that what you said is more or less true for you and I, and have said so elsewhere, my goldilocks remark does not restate that principle.  Even if someone came to the table with a "kill them all and let God sort them out: argument, that hypothetical person would consider their proposal in the goldilocks zone.  Generally, no one considers their own proposals "TOO aggressive" or "Too gentle." 

If you and your roomate agree that the fridge should not be kept "too warm or too cold", that's not much of an agreement, if your roomate thinks that "just right" means a temperature at which milk and vegetables freeze and ice gathers at the top of the fridge, while you think that it means that milk and veggies stay unfrozen but  but maximally fresh.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 19, 2016, 03:46:13 PM
Neither side (here anyhow) believes we should walk away and let them have the run of the joint, nor do they think we should kill them all for daring to... dare us to stop them.  It isn't all that productive to pretend anyone to one side or the other of your comfort zone is one of those extremes. 

I know I'm closer to the "kill them all and let God sort them out" side of the spectrum than you are Pete.  That doesn't mean I find the suggestion to do exactly that monstrous. 

You don't accuse your roommate of trying to give you all food poisoning by TRYING to spoil the milk just because you want your other beverages to be a bit more frosty.  You buy him a beer cozy with some witty cartoon characters on it so his widdle hands don't get too cold and tell him to STFU.  Like any mature adult would.  :)
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 19, 2016, 03:48:54 PM
Protesting that the laws are not being applied equally falls under what I consider a "good cause".  Not liberal or conservative cause.

To the extent that the laws are being applied unequally, sure.  But if the protesters are stating falsehoods about application of the law, that undermines the justice of their cause.


"Protesting that the laws don't apply to you because you were allowed to break them without interference previously, or because the divine said he was cool with it, makes you a "yahoo".  Not liberal or conservative.

Um ... Have you read Roe V. Wade?

Have you heard of squatters rights, or an easement based on usage?  These are property rights laws that go back hundreds of years.  If I let you graze on my land for over 20 years, without written agreement, then by the law of any state, I have given you an easement to graze on my land.  That's basic common law of property dating back to before the US revolution.  The common law of property is crystal clear that an easement is a form of PROPERTY.  5th amendment says the fed can't take any property away without compensation. 

Now other laws and circumstances may apply here, but what you said is as applied to grazing and passage rights.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 19, 2016, 03:53:27 PM
Neither side (here anyhow) believes we should walk away and let them have the run of the joint, nor do they think we should kill them all for daring to... dare us to stop them.  It isn't all that productive to pretend anyone to one side or the other of your comfort zone is one of those extremes. 

I know I'm closer to the "kill them all and let God sort them out" side of the spectrum than you are Pete.  That doesn't mean I find the suggestion to do exactly that monstrous. 

You don't accuse your roommate of trying to give you all food poisoning by TRYING to spoil the milk just because you want your other beverages to be a bit more frosty.  You buy him a beer cozy with some witty cartoon characters on it so his widdle hands don't get too cold and tell him to STFU.  Like any mature adult would.  :)

What I actually did was turn the thing down, and when he yelled at me for causing a mess (because the frozen water at the top melted) I explained that the ice wouldn't have been there if he hadn't turned it to freezing.  He started kicking me.  I later lied and told him I'd called the cops. He moved out.

 I was 18.  Fortunately I haven't had to deal with that as a mature adult.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 19, 2016, 04:05:31 PM
Have you heard of squatters rights, or an easement based on usage?  These are property rights laws that go back hundreds of years.  If I let you graze on my land for over 20 years, without written agreement, then by the law of any state, I have given you an easement to graze on my land.  That's basic common law of property dating back to before the US revolution.  The common law of property is crystal clear that an easement is a form of PROPERTY.  5th amendment says the fed can't take any property away without compensation.
There are no squatters rights over public lands, also a fairly settled piece of law.

I find the issues around western land use deliberately confusing.  If you listen to either side in isolation what they say makes sense, but when you put them together there's no way to make them line up.  Either one side is crazy or the other side is facist.  I am left with wondering what the justification for the federal government controlling more than a majority of the territory of any state actually would be?  And then when by remote decisions from regulators there are changes made in that already unfair distribution of land to impose burdens on the private owners, or to restrict usages of public lands that in some cases have been occurring for a hundred years or more, it gets even more questionable.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 19, 2016, 04:14:17 PM
This whole line of discussion would be if I said the BLM movement was wrong to shut down malls or airports and suddenly I was accused of being dismissive of the movement. 

These guys aren't on their ranch.  They aren't even on the adjacent property of their ranch.  They created an armed standoff to generate publicity and are still trying to find a narrative that clicks with a wider audience after the cause that brought them there, asked them to go away.  Then the locals did the same.

At this point, I don't even care if the cause they are (currently) promoting is lawful and just and any opposition to that position makes you a Disney villain.  They instigated an armed confrontation as a tool of getting attention.  For me, it starts and stops there.  The nuance doesn't mean much to me.  They crossed a line. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 19, 2016, 04:18:10 PM
Quote
The very premise of federal land "belonging to the federal government" and therefore the People having no interest in how is administrated, is anti-American.
That's what the legal process (and peaceful exercise of their free speech rights and civil disobedience are for, not for an armed takeover of public property with a threat to commit violence if they are confronted.  Stop using me as your whipping boy.  You haven't once characterized my comments correctly on this thread, and it's very tiresome to keep pointing that out to you.  I'm not anybody's sock puppet, and I'm not your pinata.

Quote
I generally agree.  But would you apply this to one of the protesters in the Mall of America, where trespassing was involved?  If some of the protesters had concealed carry licenses and had guns on their person, would that mean they should be prosecuted for gun felonies while other protesters were not charged? 
Were the mall protesters armed?  Did they make a point of telling the lawful government authorities and business owners that they would never leave until the authorities agreed that they had no right to oust them and that they would fight to the death if they were evicted?  You know as well as I do that if a bunch of blacks entered a public or commercial building for a peaceful protest and announced that they were armed and weren't leaving until the government caved to their demands and would shoot if they tried to evict them, that would have had a markedly different public and government reaction.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 19, 2016, 05:17:25 PM
"This is about slapping the microphone out of the hand of nutjobs promoting anarchy "

To the extent that "this" is "About" slapping the microphone out of the hands of nutjob that promote anarchy, "this" is not a constitutional goal for the government to take.  Notjobs have freedom of speech same as anyone.  And prevention of an anarchic message is not a valid government activity, let alone a justification for violence.  Even nonlethal violence.

Use of force is justified to keep the peace and to protect property.  Potentially lethal force needs higher stakes to justify.

Fortunately Obama seems smarter than his worshippers and understands that this incident is an opportunity to teach the state governments and police how it's done.  How to handle a potentially deadly situation without excessive force.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 19, 2016, 05:23:02 PM
When I'm not lighting black candles in the name of Obama I sometimes like to post things that sound reprehensible when taken out of context.  It's a hobby.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 19, 2016, 06:03:45 PM
Quote
The very premise of federal land "belonging to the federal government" and therefore the People having no interest in how is administrated, is anti-American.
That's what the legal process (and peaceful exercise of their free speech rights and civil disobedience are for, not for an armed takeover of public property with a threat to commit violence if they are confronted.  .(personal inferences and accusations omitted

Of course. That's why I advised against replying to your question. Because you would obfuscate by pretending that we were defending the armed takeover.  That like if I acted like you thought Arabs should be burnt alive in Baltimore because you sympathize with the goals of Black Lives matter.

Quote
I generally agree.  But would you apply this to one of the protesters in the Mall of America, where trespassing was involved?  If some of the protesters had concealed carry licenses and had guns on their person, would that mean they should be prosecuted for gun felonies while other protesters were not charged? 
Were the mall protesters armed? 
[/quote]

No.  It was a hypothetical, Al. Hence my use of the word "If.". I withdraw the question.  I note for the record that you have even obfuscated my hypothetical that attempt to get at the true issues at play.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 19, 2016, 06:16:05 PM
This whole line of discussion would be if I said the BLM movement was wrong to shut down malls or airports and suddenly I was accused of being dismissive of the movement. 

Exactly what I have been saying.

They created an armed standoff to generate publicity and are still trying to find a narrative that clicks with a wider audience after the cause that brought them there, asked them to go away.  Then the locals did the same.,

While I agree that their narrative has shifted since their occupation began, it seems ludicrous to suppose that they just invented the BLM land management issue , in light of their father's struggle over the same exact issue.

At this point, I don't even care if the cause they are (currently) promoting is lawful and just and any opposition to that position makes you a Disney villain.  They instigated an armed confrontation as a tool of getting attention. For me, it starts and stops there.


When I was your age, that's how I felt about the Palestinians because of things like Munich.

Quote
The nuance doesn't mean much to me.  They crossed a line.

So all family ranchers need to be ignore because of the actions of a handful?

Have you seen the ads for the new movie with Julia Roberts and George Cloony?

BTW, let's look up the definition of an "armed standoff".
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 19, 2016, 07:46:32 PM
Quote
Because you would obfuscate by pretending that we were defending the armed takeover.
Gee, right after I tell you to stop doing that, it's the first thing you do.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 19, 2016, 08:05:04 PM
So by cracking down on these law breakers, you settle the issue(s) they champion?  That's exactly what you've been saying?   Or was that the exact opposite?

As to the armed stand off definition, give me a better label if you want.   This would be over if not for the guns.    Do you disagree?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 19, 2016, 11:29:23 PM
This would be over if not for the guns.    Do you disagree?

This is much as you said earlier, where you supposed that paradoxically the fact that they're being given a wide berth due to being armed may send others the message that being armed gains you respect or makes people take you seriously. And the interesting thing is you may have been right. It's very easy to make people go away when they can't offer force in return, but when they're offering resistance you have to take things to the next level if you want to force them to desist. In this case since they're trespassing it's a bit of an easier call to say they should be made to desist, but in principle the same thing happened with Occupy in NYC, where the city tried every trick in the book to make the protesters to disperse from their legitimate protest on public property. Even though the protesters were unarmed violence was employed from time to time against them, although not in great force. Then again on those occasions when the city instructed them that their right to gather there was revoked (this happened a few times) if they had not complied peacefully I am quite confident the NYPD would have arrested them or forced them out, since I know the NYPD's reputation with protesters ('efficient').

The fact is that when people are willing to offer resistance and can back it up with force you need to think long and hard about how much violence you're willing to bring to bear to make them do what you want. Most of society operates based on compliance with only the veiled threat of violence (not so veiled in any encounter with the police), so it's certainly a strange wake-up call for urban types like myself to remember that non-compliance begins to look strange in an ecosystem like ours. It can even look crazy just by virtue of it being such a strange thing.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 20, 2016, 12:24:26 AM
So by cracking down on these law breakers, you settle the issue(s) they champion?  That's exactly what you've been saying?   Or was that the exact opposite?

As to the armed stand off definition, give me a better label if you want.   This would be over if not for the guns.    Do you disagree?

Run a search on the words "Utah" and "occupation", silly boy.  It's a cause *I* championed quite peacefully on this forum, without guns, from 2001 until 2,years ago.  I championed it quite fervently on other forums previously.The fact that some gun toting protesters (whose own church has denounced them) have stepped into the ring using means that I reject, does not mean that the issue stops being valid.

"may send others the message that being armed gains you respect or makes people take you seriously"

:duh:! Who doesn't know that?  Brandishing guns at a protest also gets you put on trial .  Whereas unarmed protesters rarely face trial in America.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 20, 2016, 12:41:13 AM
So by cracking down on these law breakers, you settle the issue(s) they champion?  That's exactly what you've been saying?   Or was that the exact opposite?

As to the armed stand off definition, give me a better label if you want.   This would be over if not for the guns.    Do you disagree?

How about "armed noncompliance"? :)
Armed challenge?

Look, we don't live in the days of Aaron Burr, when a gentleman could not honorably decline a challenge. Nor do we live during the Clinton years when feds shooting pregnant women with babies and dropping cluster bombs on Serbian kids was necessary distraction from the Telenovelas of the Oral office. The feds are no more compelled to engage the Bundy gun challenge than Mrs Obama would be compelled to accept lady Gaga's challenge to a strip-off.

These buddies would not be getting press if dumb ads lefties hadn't shot their mouthed off about supposed "double standards."

You want an applicable term? Sui Generis. Means in a category of its own. That's why there's no applicable term.  This hasn't been done, AFAIK.  Which is why all that crap about double standards is just that: crap.  You can't have two standards for an act that has only been performed once.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 20, 2016, 12:42:42 AM
Quote
Because you would obfuscate by pretending that we were defending the armed takeover.
Gee, right after I tell you to stop doing that, it's the first thing you do.

?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 21, 2016, 09:35:57 AM
Pete, I don't need to run a search.  I don't need to try and sway you or support an argument that you think I'm making.  Why?  Because I didn't make it in the first place.  I DO NOT THINK that the bad actions of one, or a small group, soils the cause they champion.  They may make it easier to scapegoat or dismiss by some, but I don't think so.

My point of contention, that probably isn't even a point of contention, is that the ends do not justify the means.  You do not excuse the actions (illegal actions at that) of some actors because their hearts were in the right place.  You do not break laws you don't like, you seek to get them changed.

That sentiment may make me a "silly boy", but I'd at least like to be poked fun at for my actual beliefs rather than having my words used as your sock puppet antagonist.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 21, 2016, 09:57:35 AM
Why would I call you silly if I was making you a "sock puppet antagonist." You said something silly. It happens to all of us.  If I said something silly and you replied "silly boy" I would not take offense.  But if it that's a sore spot for you, please explain so I can avoid it in the future.

What I found silly was your statement that if we don't arrest these guys quickly we send the message that guns get attention.  I think that's like sending the message that the sky is blue.  It's not a heavily guarded state secret.  Stated this way, do you understand that I am neither ridiculing you nor making you a monster? Just rejecting one small argument you made, with giggles not intended to hurt your feelings. :) and hoping that you will see the humor in the situation.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 21, 2016, 10:02:51 AM
I am not offended at being called silly Pete.  I'm bringing it up because it appears I'm being called silly for endorsing the polar opposite of my views.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 21, 2016, 10:04:22 AM
Thanks for clarifying what part of my statement you found silly.
Now I can just disagree.  Instead of wonder what the hell was causing the breakdown in communication.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 26, 2016, 10:27:41 PM
Sounds like 1 dead and 1 injured in arrest made of the Oregon wildlife refuge occupiers.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 27, 2016, 04:25:19 AM
I'll hold off commenting on the confrontation until the facts are presented, but I wonder why Ammon is not dead...? He said repeatedly that he would not surrender and would defend the occupation even if it ended in his own death.  The Bundy Ranch facebook page posted,
Quote
Tonight peaceful patriots were attacked on a remote road for supporting the constitution. One was killed.  Who are the terrorists?
Sometimes I think we live in the Twilight Zone.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 27, 2016, 09:27:30 AM
I'll hold off commenting on the confrontation until the facts are presented, but I wonder why Ammon is not dead...? He said repeatedly that he would not surrender and would defend the occupation even if it ended in his own death.  The Bundy Ranch facebook page posted,
Quote
Tonight peaceful patriots were attacked on a remote road for supporting the constitution. One was killed.  Who are the terrorists?
Sometimes I think we live in the Twilight Zone.

Did you read even the most cursory report before commenting? They weren't in the compound when arrested, they were on the road.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 27, 2016, 10:03:46 AM
I was more amused by the express statement that he was going to hold off commenting until the facts are presented, and then making a comment.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 27, 2016, 10:15:49 AM
Well Pete, social media is making good on some of your points.  A disturbing (to me at least) amount of people commenting "about time!" mashing "Like" buttons and in general celebrating this action and even the loss of life.

So, while I still don't appreciate it being suggested people here are bloodthirsty, the kool-aid out there on social media has a distinctive coppery taste.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 27, 2016, 10:18:41 AM
Actually, I did read several reports but they all said that details would be presented at a press conference later this morning.  I didn't comment on the fact that they weren't in the compound offices, since my remarks had nothing to do with where they were, only that Ammon miraculously survived.  What do you think of the comment made on the Bundy Facebook page?  Or is it too early to comment on that, too?
Quote
So, while I still don't appreciate it being suggested people here are bloodthirsty, the kool-aid out there on social media has a distinctive coppery taste.
That doesn't surprise me at all.  Lots of people were exasperated with the government waiting so long to confront them.  That includes many of the townspeople and people who are concerned that the land is being abused.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 27, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
So, while I still don't appreciate it being suggested people here are bloodthirsty, the kool-aid out there on social media has a distinctive coppery taste.

How many of the ranchers were Vulcans?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 27, 2016, 03:57:53 PM
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/bundys_in_custody_one_militant.html#incart_big-photo (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/bundys_in_custody_one_militant.html#incart_big-photo)

Quote
Fiore, a vocal supporter of the Bundy family, said that Ammon Bundy told his wife that Finicum was cooperating with police when he was shot.

But sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that Finicum and Ryan Bundy disobeyed orders to surrender and resisted arrest. No other details were available.


Hands up, Don't shoot, right?
I bet they weren't even armed.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: scifibum on January 27, 2016, 04:05:45 PM
If those who performed the arrest aren't insane, this'll be on video, and we'll see.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 27, 2016, 08:06:16 PM
Well Pete, social media is making good on some of your points.  A disturbing (to me at least) amount of people commenting "about time!" mashing "Like" buttons and in general celebrating this action and even the loss of life.

So, while I still don't appreciate it being suggested people here are bloodthirsty, the kool-aid out there on social media has a distinctive coppery taste.

Not persons, just one " wonder why Ammon is not dead" person.

Who is more dangerous, those willing to die to get attention , or those willing to kill, in order to say, nothing to see here, move along.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 27, 2016, 08:09:07 PM
Quote
Not persons, just one " wonder why Ammon is not dead" person.

Who is more dangerous, those willing to die to get attention , or those willing to kill, in order to say, nothing to see here, move along.
You misapprehend me (one wonders why it is important to do so).  I was referencing his statements about himself, not my wishing for his demise.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 27, 2016, 08:21:55 PM
Probably so. I am tired and dissapointed that leftist  bloodthirst and affirmative atrocity has won the day, and took your statement in the worst possible way without giving the benefit of the doubt.

 My point to DW was that right or wrong, you are the only one I had so accused. 

Anyway, I trust my point about the tear gas being an unnecessary danger, has been borne out by the facts?

Any more dumb ass talk of double standards?

The white supremacists got the death they want.  I hope the twap that did the killing is investigated.  I hope he is white. Even better, that he has white supremacist connections.  That way there would be a plausible argument against this being a Randy weaver rerun.

I don't want to see an OK City rerun.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 27, 2016, 08:31:34 PM
Ammon Bundy said:

" "To those remaining at the refuge, I love you. Let us take this fight from here. Please stand down. Go home and hug your families. This fight is ours for now in the courts. Please go home."

Wow, sounds like a really *dangerous* guy.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 27, 2016, 08:37:29 PM
"The FBI declined to release any details about how a spokesman for the protest group was killed during a confrontation with federal and state agencies a day earlier, citing a policy of not commenting on shooting incidents while they are under review."

Wasn't that the reason for the initial Ferguson riots? The police department's refusal to give the cop's name before the internal review was going?

If anyone has this on vid, I bet they're under arrest...

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 27, 2016, 09:14:28 PM
Ammon Bundy said:

" "To those remaining at the refuge, I love you. Let us take this fight from here. Please stand down. Go home and hug your families. This fight is ours for now in the courts. Please go home."

Wow, sounds like a really *dangerous* guy.

He got a man killed and himself shot.   I think that's plenty dangerous.   At least he has enough honor to try and talk some of his companions back from the ledge.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 27, 2016, 10:11:14 PM
Ammon Bundy said:

" "To those remaining at the refuge, I love you. Let us take this fight from here. Please stand down. Go home and hug your families. This fight is ours for now in the courts. Please go home."

Wow, sounds like a really *dangerous* guy.

He got a man killed and himself shot.   I think that's plenty dangerous.   At least he has enough honor to try and talk some of his companions back from the ledge.

If he had been shot and the other killed inside the occupied building, then your "got himself shot" line would not sound like an appallingly brute-affirming shift of responsibility.

They were shot while moving away.  We're they even armed when shot?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 27, 2016, 11:07:25 PM
Don't know on the guns yet.   That they took them on the road, to me demonstrates a great desire to minimize risk of violence.   Apparently that wasn't enough.   

You see the law enforcement officers as responsible if things go wrong.   I see every arrest without harm as a victory but consider every one of the suspects as volatile possibly homicidal and suicidal.  They could always surrender.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 27, 2016, 11:47:21 PM
Don't know on the guns yet.   That they took them on the road, to me demonstrates a great desire to minimize risk of violence.   Apparently that wasn't enough.   

You see the law enforcement officers as responsible if things go wrong.   I see every arrest without harm as a victory but consider every one of the suspects as volatile possibly homicidal and suicidal.  They could always surrender.

Obviously what you said is not always true.  No, you can't always just surrender.  Some cops would rather take you dead than alive, especially when both the right and the left want to see blood spilt.

Whether cops are blameless in this death depends on facts not in evidence.  Like courts, I make presumptions against the party that possesses and withholds facts.

Here, Bundy is the one saying things to de-escalate the violence, while the FBI silence manifests malice and wrongdoing.  Since they now have all the original ringleaders, they should offer to reduce charges against those who remain if they surrender now.  That's a common sense approach to this situation.  I have praised their actions up until now: they waded out the matter as they should have, waiting until people left to arrest the leaders.  But this silence is an untimely fumble.  Remember Ferguson ? 

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 27, 2016, 11:54:22 PM
Quote
That they took them on the road, to me demonstrates a great desire to minimize risk of violence

Agreed.  But strangely inconsistent to shoot at the people rather than at the cars. 

I doubt that any order to shoot at people, let alone to kill, came from above.

The FBI should already have ascertained whether Bundy or the victim's weapon had fired.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 28, 2016, 07:06:25 AM
Pete, your last 3 or 4 comments in this thread show the kind of animosity toward the government that fuels the belief that there is no way for law enforcement to win an armed confrontation other than by talky-talky.  In this case, arresting them away from the compound had far less risk of violence than a siege would have.  Perhaps they didn't know if the people in the car were armed or not, but they had repeatedly talked about their stockpile of weapons and sworn to defend themselves to the death.  The reports I've read have consistently said that the man who got killed had sworn never to be taken alive and disobeyed FBI orders to stand down.  Instead he {marched, charged, walked} directly toward them and taunted them to shoot him.  It's still not clear if it was a "good shoot" or why they did it, but the fact that witnesses are talking (inconsistently, I might point out) and the FBI agents aren't doesn't make the FBI the bad guys.  Give it time and listen with an open mind.  I'm going to stay undecided about the rationale for shooting him until then.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 28, 2016, 07:59:29 AM
Pete, your last 3 or 4 comments in this thread show the kind of animosity toward the government that fuels the belief that there is no way for law enforcement to win an armed confrontation other than by talky-talky.  In this case, arresting them away from the compound had far less risk of violence than a siege would have.  Perhaps they didn't know if the people in the car were armed or not, but they had repeatedly talked about their stockpile of weapons and sworn to defend themselves to the death.  The reports I've read have consistently said that the man who got killed had sworn never to be taken alive and disobeyed FBI orders to stand down.  Instead he {marched, charged, walked} directly toward them and taunted them to shoot him.  It's still not clear if it was a "good shoot" or why they did it, but the fact that witnesses are talking (inconsistently, I might point out) and the FBI agents aren't doesn't make the FBI the bad guys.  Give it time and listen with an open mind.  I'm going to stay undecided about the rationale for shooting him until then.

Your hypocrisy here is matched only by your misrepresentation of me.  Half of what you said simply restates what I said and the other half pretends that I said other than what I said. 

I only criticized the withholding of information, comparing it to what happened at Ferguson.  Need I refresh your memory that at Ferguson, the shoot turned out to be good and justified? 

You may have lost the ability to ask honest ie non rhetorical questions, but I have not.  When I ask a question, that doesn't mean that I think I know the answer.

What I said before was that FBI seems to have handled things well up until yesterday. I have questions about what happened yesterday (real questions, open minded questions) and I don't like the complete silence from the FBI.

I also laid out evidence that the Obama administration has been running this safely and properly and that the fault if any lies with the agents at the scene.  I don't think you really believe that is the message that fuels these right wing groups that you seem so eager to hand a war to. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 28, 2016, 08:49:26 AM
This article answers my questions to my satisfaction:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/us/oregon-siege-traffic-stop/index.html

I am pleased that the FBI has released this preliminary information rather than waiting for a protracted investigation.

Seems to me that the victim here was victim to his own unwillingness to be taken alive. Not to any police misconduct.  Kudos to the Obama admin for showing America that the years of Janet Reno storm troopers are a thing of the past, and hat Obama's appointees are made of cooler stuff than his worshippers who cried for immediate blood at every stage of this crisis.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 28, 2016, 09:37:48 AM
The occupiers took a vacant government building, armed, and challenged the govt to a shootout. The government said, waited, and arrested as the occupiers left.

One car tried to break free in a high speed chase.  Rather than shooting, the government laid a roadblock.  This sort of admirable restraint was possible because they weren't in an urban area, and because the occupiers had not yet done violence to any person.

The vehicle caught in a snow bank thanks to the roadblock. The victim gave the FBI no choice but to shoot when he appeared to go for a weapon.

It appears that at no time did the FBI use lethal force for the purpose of shutting anyone up.  Lethal force was used against the reasonable apprehension of intent lethal violence.

I hope law enforcement everywhere draws a lesson from how things were done here.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on January 28, 2016, 09:50:54 AM
Pete, thanks for that link,  but what the heck?
Quote
For days, they watched as members of the group came and went freely from the refuge. Some went home on weekends. Ammon Bundy, the group's leader, visited family near Boise, Idaho.
Why did they every let anyone that goes out go back in?  Couldn't they have forced this to resolved by preventing reentry?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 28, 2016, 10:01:56 AM
Or cutting off their communication.  That they were permitted to plead for reinforcements to murder their way in if necessary boggles the mind.  I guess that even those who challenge the government to a shootout and solicit murder are entitled to free speech? 

Hopefully we don't see repeats of this.  (not sure it's resolved entirely)
There will be lots of people disappointed that the civil war was so short lived...
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 28, 2016, 10:16:57 AM
Pete, thanks for that link,  but what the heck?
Quote
For days, they watched as members of the group came and went freely from the refuge. Some went home on weekends. Ammon Bundy, the group's leader, visited family near Boise, Idaho.
Why did they every let anyone that goes out go back in?  Couldn't they have forced this to resolved by preventing reentry?
That confuses me, too.  They seem to have bent over backwards to avoid seeming at all aggressive, which in turn made a lot of people, including the Governor of Oregon, accuse them of passivity.  It was smart to catch them away from the compound, so maybe they were lulling them into a feeling of complacency.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 28, 2016, 11:07:29 AM
Pete, thanks for that link,  but what the heck?
Quote
For days, they watched as members of the group came and went freely from the refuge. Some went home on weekends. Ammon Bundy, the group's leader, visited family near Boise, Idaho.
Why did they every let anyone that goes out go back in?  Couldn't they have forced this to resolved by preventing reentry?

Whoa. That is weird. I hadn't read that part when I said it was a model for others to follow. 

Yeah, I think they should have cut power and limited if not cut comms.  Surprised to hear about the in and out.  Maybe they lacked manpower for a seige? Or were driving home that they weren't taking the protest seriously.

On another link I read a story, quite funny, that in response to the group calling for outsiders to come bring them supplies, that someone delivered them a crate full of dildos.  LoL.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2016, 11:09:32 AM
Quote
Tuesday was the first time that the combination of top leaders was all together traveling away from their base at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the official said.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 28, 2016, 11:17:09 AM
Quote
Tuesday was the first time that the combination of top leaders was all together traveling away from their base at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the official said.

Good catch, Don. In that light, I'd say the handling was even more brilliant than what I proposed.

Seems to me that this whole thing caused less danger and expense than a good many urban protests.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 28, 2016, 01:01:56 PM
Except for the apparent suicide by cop of one of them, I think this was as good an outcome as anyone could have hoped - if you wanted them to give up, of course.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: scifibum on January 28, 2016, 01:26:42 PM
Video will come out later, and I imagine there will be some doubt as to whether Finicum was going to shoot or not, but after his vows to go down in a blaze of gunfire, I don't blame the cops for not giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I personally haven't seen anyone hoping anyone dies in this mess.  There have been people who point out that it doesn't seem like black or Muslim insurrectionists would have gotten such careful handling, and I suspect they are right.  The local law enforcement set the tone, and they were sympathetic to these guys - and I think it's partly about identifying with them.  But it's also fair to note that the circumstances of this situation are pretty unique in other ways too, so we can only guess about what would have happened if the protest had been about the other BLM but armed and somehow in a remote wildlife refuge.  But anyway, my point is that I've seen some angry jabs along the lines of "why aren't these guys dead already like they would be if they were black?", but I think it's fair to interpret that as a condemnation of police violence, not literally as a call for more of it.  It's a rhetorical device, not a plea.

I do think it reflects well on the handling of this situation that they waited for a low stakes opportunity to grab as many leaders as they could - and the guy who died might really have left them little choice (except to let him continue his experiment in sovereign citizenry indefinitely, which I think would be a dangerous precedent).
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 28, 2016, 01:50:21 PM
If someone engages in a high speed chase, then appears to grab for what might be a weapon, I think cops are justified in taking the shot, regardless of whether it turns out that he had a weapon.

I hope that other protesters heed the Bundy call to go home.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 29, 2016, 09:14:34 AM
So it sounds like they released the video of the arrest and shooting.  At first I thought to myself, "Good for them.  If they sat on it this would just get worse and conspiracy theories will build."  Then after a moment it occurred to me how disturbing this would be for relatives and friends of the man.  Clean shoot or not, this means seeing someone you know killed on screen.  The national stage no less. 

I wonder if our desire for oversight and/or mistrust for authority threatens to make us forget to take into account those beyond the suspects and officers/agents involved.  We (myself included) were already wondering when/if the footage would be released before they even officially released the deceased's name.  They may very well have been trying to contact his family before doing so yet we all (or at least some of us) jump to the "something to hide" line of thinking.

Our relationship with "news" today is a strange thing.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on January 29, 2016, 09:40:45 AM
I wish they'd shown dash cam footage since the aerial is hard to see clearly. It looks like after going into the ditch he came out with his hands up, and if I'm not mistaken, then made a move to draw a sidearm when the police shot him. I'm guessing this is what happened because of the motion of his right arm when he put his arms down. He absolutely did not, however, charge at anyone; he was standing in place. Who said he charged at an officer, again?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on January 29, 2016, 09:55:01 AM
One of the other witnesses said that.  It was the direct contrast to the, "Just shot him when he had his hands up"  witness statement. 

Then again, that could have been taken out of context.  From what I heard he did try to get away again in the car after the initial stop.  An agent/state trooper was in the car's path.  This COULD BE construed as "charging them"... I guess. 

Mostly the lesson is don't believe what anyone says.  Give even LESS weight to the first reports you hear.  If you see video, the shorter it is, the higher the probability additional context may change the obvious interpretation of events you were shown.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on January 29, 2016, 01:52:40 PM
I watched the video of the shooting.  The FBI claimed he reached for his left inside jacket pocket twice, where he had a gun.  The video bears that out.  Start watching at 5:50 (https://youtu.be/gjl1hefqqWI). That should be compared against statements made by witnesses who said otherwise.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on January 29, 2016, 04:19:00 PM
I haven't seen the footage but anything that looks like a reach for a gun seems, under the circumstances, enough for the agent to take a shot. If these are the facts then no trial should be necessary.   Reasonable apprehension of imminent lethal force = justified homicide.  I'be said it before in other cases we have discussed. Politics and skin color should not change that simple principle of Common Law.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: scifibum on January 29, 2016, 06:48:33 PM
I don't think there will be ground level video (none of the vehicle dashboards appear to be pointed in the right direction) but the aerial video turns out to be pretty good. 

He repeatedly reached for something (or has a tic that looks just like reaching for something).  The FBI said he turned out to have a gun in a pocket where he appeared to be reaching.  His movements seemed frantic/panicked to me, as did his final driving maneuver.

I think it would take an extreme bias to say that the FBI shouldn't have opened fire based on what is in the video.  They didn't attempt any resuscitation for a few minutes because it took a little while to be sure that nobody else was going to start shooting.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: yossarian22c on January 29, 2016, 09:06:38 PM
From the reports I've read it was the Oregon state troopers who were with the FBI who ended up actually doing the shooting. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: LetterRip on February 05, 2016, 03:44:50 PM
AI Wessex,

witnesses can't see every angle, things can look entirely innocuous from one angle, yet seem sinister from another angle.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on February 05, 2016, 08:27:44 PM
AI Wessex,

witnesses can't see every angle, things can look entirely innocuous from one angle, yet seem sinister from another angle.
Quite true.  My wife was standing outside talking to the neighbors one day when they heard a loud crash at the end of the block.  They all turned and saw that there had been an accident and one of the vehicles drove off without stopping to see if anyone in the other car was hurt.  The police came and took all of their statements.  One said the car that left was white, another said blue and the third said it was a pickup truck.  The difference between their witness memories and the woman who was in the car that Finicum was driving.  She saw the whole thing and is accusing the officer of shooting him while his hands were raised.  When shown the overhead video with him lowering his arms and reaching for his pocket she insisted that the video was playing tricks and her memory is accurate.  Witness testimony matters in this case, as she's been sharing her story with fellow believers ever since.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 06, 2016, 10:34:12 AM
This will probably be resolved with a dash can or body can. Surely with everything at stake here they would have been competent enough to get multiple angles.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on February 06, 2016, 11:08:53 AM
This will probably be resolved with a dash can or body can. Surely with everything at stake here they would have been competent enough to get multiple angles.
I would have expected those to have been shown by now, or at least acknowledged, if they exist.  The problem remains that if an eye witness sitting 20 feet away with a clear view of the shooting denies video evidence that contradicts her story, no amount of additional evidence will sway people whose attitudes are locked into an anti-authority point of view. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 06, 2016, 01:12:20 PM
If what LR said doesn't convince you, nothing I said will.

In a three dimensional world, examining a video record from multiple angles helps nail down facts.  You are always so hasty to toss away reasoning and facts based on the supposition that anyone who disagrees with you is fact-proof.  Fortunately the Obama admin who you claim to support has so far dealt more reasonably, and it has paid out in spades, despite disappointment on the far left and far right. 

If you want to see blood, Hollywood has plenty of movies to satisfy that need. Or look up the Kent State reruns.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on February 06, 2016, 03:44:51 PM
I no longer think you even try to argue in good faith.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 06, 2016, 04:12:27 PM
I no longer think you even try to argue in good faith.

You are wrong.  And anyone who cares to pursue the thread can see that you never for an instant treated me like I was arguing in good faith. 

I believe the government's account here because of a multiplicity of facts.  I suspect, as LR implies, that the eyewitness is speaking in good faith, but simply mistaken based on angle.  Your suggestion that anyone who isn't persuaded won't be by another photographic angle, is the sort of death dealing arrogance by which you dismiss most of your fellow Americans from capacity for reason.

I believe that facts and knowledge remain the best cures for ignorance.  And that sunlight and vigilance is the easiest remedy for abuse of power.



Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on February 06, 2016, 05:21:17 PM
Quote
I believe that facts and knowledge remain the best cures for ignorance.  And that sunlight and vigilance is the easiest remedy for abuse of power.
Pious words, and yet you over and over again vilify and demonize those who don't line up in your vision while you misrepresent what those people say again and again and again.  If you do believe what I just quoted you as saying, you should start demonstrating it.  I wish the forum had a tool that could be used to find out how many times and how often people here have said that you twisted their words, put words in their mouths or made up facts to insist that they are themselves deluded.  Know thyself and show some of the humility you have often accused me and others of lacking.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 07, 2016, 11:39:40 AM
"Pious words"
You are wrong. eading between the lines when authority obfuscates is a skill, not a religion.  To appeal to my sense of right and wrong, you would have to read me more carefully than you have hitherto done.

However, here for once you haven't misrepresented me.  You even quoted a relevant part. This is progress.  Keep doing that, and the dialog will improve. 

".  vilify and demonize those who don't line up in your vision"

" yet you over and over again vilify and demonize those who don't line up in your vision "

For your accusation to be true I would have to have a positive vision, which I wish I had.  Instead I have a profile of the great liars and accusers, from Torquemada to Goebbels to some of the prosecutors I went up against in Vegas.  When you use profile tactics, I tend to point them out, and my tone is not gentle because my experience is bitter.

Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 07, 2016, 11:43:18 AM
I no longer think you even try to argue in good faith.

You are wrong.  And anyone who cares to pursue the thread can see that you never for an instant treated me like I was arguing in good faith. 

I believe the government's account here because of a multiplicity of facts.  I suspect, as LR implies, that the eyewitness is speaking in good faith, but simply mistaken based on angle.  Your suggestion that anyone who isn't persuaded won't be by another photographic angle, is the sort of death dealing arrogance by which you dismiss most of your fellow Americans from capacity for reason.

I believe that facts and knowledge remain the best cures for ignorance.  And that sunlight and vigilance is the easiest remedy for abuse of power.

Here's the full context of the post Al responded to. I don't believe I demonized him at any point here.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on February 07, 2016, 02:10:53 PM
Here's a better slice at what I was responding to:
Quote
Pete: Kudos to the Obama admin for showing America that the years of Janet Reno storm troopers are a thing of the past, and hat Obama's appointees are made of cooler stuff than his worshippers who cried for immediate blood at every stage of this crisis.
and
Quote
If you want to see blood, Hollywood has plenty of movies to satisfy that need. Or look up the Kent State reruns.
There must be a horde of "Obama's worshippers" given how often you refer to and demonize them.  I've never met one, myself, and certainly wouldn't characterize anyone on this forum as being one.  Your second quote was directed at me.  It's frankly bizarre and irrational that you keep insisting that I "want to see blood".  Here, too, find a comment I've made that backs up your claim, and while you're looking add this to your stack of pending apologies.

You're on a tear these days.

Edit: I just had a thought.  I waste a lot of time responding to your posts, more often than not correcting your misstatements about me and sometimes about others.  I'm going to do my best to ignore you for the time being, at least until your posts become more calm.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 07, 2016, 06:15:17 PM
"There must be a horde of "Obama's worshippers" given how often you refer to and demonize them. "

Are you saying that anyone who idolized and adores Obama is a demon? Or that someone that calls for unnecessary force against wacky gun toting religious nuts is a demon?

I don't see either of these characterizations as demonic.  I think they demonstrate typical human errors such as vanity, idolatry, chauvinism, impatience, and moral apathy.

It's not like I compared them to Nazis, which is the new lefty shriek against Denmark (for trying to recuperate a fraction of refugee expenses from "refugees" that come in with large quantities of cash) or the UK (for asking some refugees to wear removable ID bracelets).

If by "denomination" you mean mere hyperbole, then aren't you commuting hyperbole and hence "denomination"?  :D
 
You waste a lot of time responding to my posts, more often than not trying to fit me into some FOX box, or asking me to adhere to posting standards that you do not adhere to yourself.  You spend pages railing against how I say things rather than actual content.

Try going just three days replying to what I said rather than his I said t or what you think that I think, or what you wish I had said.  See if I change the tenor of my responses.


It was DW, ,BTW, not me, who voiced his dismay about number folks on social networks cheering at the death of the old guy in Oregon. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 07, 2016, 06:28:18 PM
"Your second quote was directed at me."

You have elsewhere defended your right to respond to something I said with an argument against something you saw on FOX.   Here, I tried to accept your assertion that you didn't want to see anyone dead, but I don't accept that explanation for the social media folks that DW mentioned.

My only recent suggestion that you might want to see blood, was in direct response to your denunciation of my suggestion of arguments to persuade those who still suspect foul play in the old dude's death.  As usual, you did one of your spiels that facts and evidence are too good for those who presume to disagree with you. (/slight hyperbole).  My response to that is that with these guys, when we.stop talking, they start fighting, and it behooves reasonable people to lay out the facts.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on February 07, 2016, 07:51:53 PM
Quote
Are you saying that anyone who idolized and adores Obama is a demon?
You are so full of *censored*.

Quote
My only recent suggestion that you might want to see blood, was in direct response to your denunciation of my suggestion of arguments to persuade those who still suspect foul play in the old dude's death.
Sorry, that doesn't make sense at any level.  You were more than saying I "might want to see blood".  Your "If I want to see blood" implied that I do, and told me where to go to see it to satisfy my urge.   

You're reminding me of Ted Cruz, who tries to weasel out of every bind he gets himself into with lawyerly arguments after he gets caught, which happens to him a lot, too.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 07, 2016, 10:59:31 PM
Quote
Are you saying that anyone who idolized and adores Obama is a demon?
You are so full of *censored*.

Quote
My only recent suggestion that you might want to see blood, was in direct response to your denunciation of my suggestion of arguments to persuade those who still suspect foul play in the old dude's death.
Sorry, that doesn't make sense at any level.  You were more than saying I "might want to see blood".  Your "If I want to see blood" implied that I do, and told me where to go to see it to satisfy my urge.   

You're reminding me of Ted Cruz, who tries to weasel out of every bind he gets himself into with lawyerly arguments after he gets caught, which happens to him a lot, too.

You are constantly demonizing my former and religion, so it comes off as bitchy when you whine at me for criticizing what you SAY.

It's not like I was attacking you for what you ARE.  As you incessantly do to me.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 07, 2016, 11:17:57 PM
" Your "If I want to see blood" implied that I do, and told me where to go to see it to satisfy my urge. "

When you say that I, or anyone else that contradicts you, is completely underserving of any sort of factual or reasonable explanation, it gives the impression that you're being a bully.

But when the parties have guns and a history of violence, the alternative to talking is violence.   So yes, I implied that you had implied that you wanted to see violence.  And you did.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 08, 2016, 12:18:31 AM
Quote
Are you saying that anyone who idolized and adores Obama is a demon?
You are so full of *censored*.

It's just kind of funny that I poke fun of Obama's worshippers, and you assume I am talking about _you_. It's not like you've up front admitted to worshipping Obama like I am about having been a lawyer and Christian/LDS, the stuff you won't quit attacking me for. How was I supposed to know that was your religion?.


Quote
You're reminding me of Ted Cruz, who [insert another one of Al's anti Lawyer slurs... Apparently he's out of antichristian and antiLDS ones.)]


Ted Cruz?   Has Al Wessex chosen a new Grand-Republican-villain blow up doll? You go through the. like Trump goes through wives. 

Well you are no Bernie Sanders. That's for sure. 

You realize Obama and the Clinton's are lawyers, right?  Or rather, Bill used to be, prior to what you in your grandiose ignorance refer to as "lawyerly" behavior. 

Lincoln Wept.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 08, 2016, 09:20:25 AM
Quote
But when the parties have guns and a history of violence, the alternative to talking is violence. 
It's your logic Pete that leads to half of these conflicts.  By this standard I would say that *I* wanted violence.  By any normal standard of conversation if someone asked me if I wanted violence to take place I would look at them as if they were mad and answer, "Of course not!  I want this to end peacefully."

Now is storming the place, overwhelming/surprising them, facing them down with such an advantage that any rational person would feel they must surrender... peaceful?  No, not so much.  But that's how we use language.

We don't equate peaceful resolution to, "We can do nothing but talk, our hands our tied."
We don't equate violence as, "any attempt of armed apprehension of suspects."

Just because you have chosen to (at least for the sake of this discussion) doesn't make others arguing counter to you "wrong".  Not that we don't get things wrong for other reasons, but failing to share your line of reasoning or using your approved lexicon seems to be the root of way too many disagreements.  I don't think there is a single poster here where I need to put as much effort into dragging meaning out of their statements.

Not that you are the only one who likes playing the semantic games here.  At least yours arguments have some meat on the bone after I scrape off the char and discover what there is to chew on.  :P
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on February 08, 2016, 11:46:28 AM
Quote
But when the parties have guns and a history of violence, the alternative to talking is violence.   So yes, I implied that you had implied that you wanted to see violence.  And you did.
You just don't get it.  Let me repeat this back to you.  You implied that I implied that I "wanted to see violence".  You said, "And [ I ] did", because as I pointed out several times, forcing them out through a direct confrontation, knowing that they were armed and declared they would fight to the death, might be a last resort?  That translates in your mind to "wanted to see violence". 

Let me give you a piece of advice that is hardly necessary.  When you are wrong, even if multiple people point that out to you over a long period of time, never, never, never, never, never, never, never back down, because it's a sign of weakness.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 08, 2016, 01:25:35 PM
I've often admitted when I am wrong, Al.  You have not.  And your idea of "criticizing" Obama is to say that he's too patient with people that won't bow down and worship him. :D 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 08, 2016, 01:28:44 PM
Quote
But when the parties have guns and a history of violence, the alternative to talking is violence. 
It's your logic Pete that leads to half of these conflicts.  By this standard I would say that *I* wanted violence.  By any normal standard of conversation if someone asked me if I wanted violence to take place I would look at them as if they were mad and answer, "Of course not!  I want this to end peacefully."

Now is storming the place, overwhelming/surprising them, facing them down with such an advantage that any rational person would feel they must surrender... peaceful?  No, not so much.  But that's how we use language.

We don't equate peaceful resolution to, "We can do nothing but talk, our hands our tied."
We don't equate violence as, "any attempt of armed apprehension of suspects."

Just because you have chosen to (at least for the sake of this discussion) doesn't make others arguing counter to you "wrong".  Not that we don't get things wrong for other reasons, but failing to share your line of reasoning or using your approved lexicon seems to be the root of way too many disagreements.  I don't think there is a single poster here where I need to put as much effort into dragging meaning out of their statements.


You're right.  In many contexts, there are alternatives other than talking or violence.  What I said applied only to this specific context of providing available video evidence to those who think that the cops shot that old guy when he had his hands up.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on February 08, 2016, 01:49:59 PM
I've often admitted when I am wrong, Al.  You have not.
Of course I have. 
Quote
And your idea of "criticizing" Obama is to say that he's too patient with people that won't bow down and worship him. :D
Right, sure it is. 

Get me right even once and you'll win a prize.  Not a big one, mind you, but still it's a win...
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 08, 2016, 01:54:06 PM
Pete, this entire issue I have interpreted your position as openly skeptical and hostile towards the government.  I know you are keen on bringing up past incidents where that hostility is deserved but most of us don't consider it to be the norm, they are noteworthy due to their status as aberrations.  Anyone who fails to adopt the same stance as you seems to qualify as a blood thirsty monster cheer leading for an action movie siege of these peaceful protesters who if left alone are no threat to anyone.

To myself (and almost certainly AI per his statements) your looking for them to release additional footage is inflammatory.  On it's face it sounds reasonable and the way you frame it is meant to be reasonable.  The way you wove it in with differing perspectives and the phrase "death dealing arrogance" are all meant to suggest that the only reasonable option is to release more footage. 

AI's point that if the previous video did not convince people nothing will, is perfectly valid. If more footage was released the next thing you would hear is that the delay is just long enough that they had time to doctor it.

If you want to mock us for having faith in our government to occasionally do it's job without trying to assassinate freedom-fighters making a stand for the benefit of all of America... Just do it plainly.  :P
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 08, 2016, 02:14:09 PM
All I did was reiterate what LR and Al were saying:

AI Wessex,

witnesses can't see every angle, things can look entirely innocuous from one angle, yet seem sinister from another angle.
Quite true.  My wife was standing outside talking to the neighbors one day when they heard a loud crash at the end of the block.  They all turned and saw that there had been an accident and one of the vehicles drove off without stopping to see if anyone in the other car was hurt.  The police came and took all of their statements.  One said the car that left was white, another said blue and the third said it was a pickup truck.  The difference between their witness memories and the woman who was in the car that Finicum was driving.  She saw the whole thing and is accusing the officer of shooting him while his hands were raised.  When shown the overhead video with him lowering his arms and reaching for his pocket she insisted that the video was playing tricks and her memory is accurate.  Witness testimony matters in this case, as she's been sharing her story with fellow believers ever since.

Quote from: Pete
This will probably be resolved with a dash can or body can.

You'd be an ass to find that remark "inflammatory."

If there isn't a dash or body cam, I didn't say that I would change my view against the state.  I'm just saying that if Al's concerned about this woman sharing her story and inspiring violence, that another camera angle, ideally a dash or body cam, could nail down what happened.

Like I've said, this guy was bragging that they'd never take him alive.  I don't think that it's "inflammatory" to suggest that a second camera angle might convince some folks who are still on the fence.

It also seems unreasonable for you to call me anti-government when I'm the only one here who has actively supported how the government is handling this situation since day one.  You were the one that initially accused the government of using 'double standards.'

Yes I've seen government do bad things and abuse authority, in other cases, but I've entirely supported them here.

Quote
If you want to mock us for having faith in our government to occasionally do it's job without trying to assassinate freedom-fighters making a stand for the benefit of all of America... Just do it plainly.  :P

That completely misstates my position.  Neither you nor Al showed faith here.  You called double standard, and Al wanted tear gas, at least. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 08, 2016, 02:34:30 PM
Quote
I'm just saying that if Al's concerned about this woman sharing her story and inspiring violence, that another camera angle, ideally a dash or body cam, could nail down what happened.
And I’m just saying this is bull poop.  There is no mystery here.  People believe what they want to believe even when it is contradicted by material evidence.

Quote
Like I've said, this guy was bragging that they'd never take him alive.  I don't think that it's "inflammatory" to suggest that a second camera angle might convince some folks who are still on the fence.
ANY action but mockery is inflammatory.  You are giving people permission to rave like lunatics and suggesting that we be fair and balanced giving their concerns a serious look.  This guy announced his intention to commit suicide by cop.  The guy committed suicide by cop.  Some are trying to turn said cop(s) into the bad guys here and we shouldn’t put up with it.  The End

Quote
It also seems unreasonable for you to call me anti-government when I'm the only one here who has actively supported how the government is handling this situation since day one.
True.  I do not mean to call you anti-government.  Your non confrontational stance on a little victimless anarchy strikes me as an overreaction based upon a deep mistrust of authority.  “Anti-government” is too blunt a title for that.  That you would humor people and suggest that we should “clear things up” with some more camera footage just reinforces that assessment.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 08, 2016, 02:42:58 PM
Quote
ANY action but mockery is inflammatory.


If that's true for you and Al, perhaps you are too easily inflamed.
Quote
You are giving people permission to rave like lunatics

No, the first amendment gives people permission to rave like lunatics.

Quote
and suggesting that we be fair and balanced

Have you caught Al's FOX bug?

Quote
giving their concerns a serious look.

It's not a concern, DW.  She's an eyewitness.  And LR and even Al had just conceded that it's possible to "see" something that didn't happen from one angle.  Therefore she doesn't have to be a lunatic to think she saw what she thinks she saw.  If I were an attorney for the government, I'd be looking for a second camera angle, just to nail things down.  Not saying they don't have a solid case without it.  Yes there are some people that will never be convinced.  But there are others that would be convinced by just a bit more evidence. That's useful in a jury system.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 08, 2016, 02:56:21 PM
I’m too easily disappointed in humanity.  I’m not inflamed to action luckily so it’s only a danger to my optimism.

Quote
No, the first amendment gives people permission to rave like lunatics.
I like your ability to say something that is so obviously true or a fact, yet ignore the point or achieve the opposite conclusion.  So am I to take that as you agreeing with me that they ARE raving like lunatics?  Or is this a dodge by framing my statement as decidedly anti-first amendment?  :P 

I have no idea on the FOX bug.  I don’t watch enough of it to say.

Being present does not change the fact I see her as someone trying to push an agenda and a message.  She may be so “blinded” by her bias that the government was in the wrong that she genuinely believes what she is saying.  I still classify it as “raving like a lunatic”.  But you are correct.  It’s not a concern.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 08, 2016, 03:06:13 PM
I’m too easily disappointed in humanity.  I’m not inflamed to action luckily so it’s only a danger to my optimism.

Quote
No, the first amendment gives people permission to rave like lunatics.
I like your ability to say something that is so obviously true or a fact, yet ignore the point or achieve the opposite conclusion.  So am I to take that as you agreeing with me that they ARE raving like lunatics?  Or is this a dodge by framing my statement as decidedly anti-first amendment?  :P 

I have no idea on the FOX bug.  I don’t watch enough of it to say.

Being present does not change the fact I see her as someone trying to push an agenda and a message.  She may be so “blinded” by her bias that the government was in the wrong that she genuinely believes what she is saying.  I still classify it as “raving like a lunatic”.  But you are correct.  It’s not a concern.

I am willing to accept for sake of argument that she's raving like a lunatic, but my point is that even if she was, it shouldn't make my suggestion of another camera angle "inflammatory."  She may be lying, she may be insane, and she may simply mistaken.  I don't think that she is *right*.  But I don't have sufficient information to say definitively whether a second camera angle would persuade her.  I'm quite sure that it would persuade some people. 

I raised the first amendment because it's a moral foundation that we share.  When I disagree with someone, and we haven't yet fallen into dismissing and insulting each other, I reach for common ground.  With Al, that's usually a Shakespeare reference, because that seems to be the only value we share in common.

I recognize that I say a lot of things that are inflammatory, and say some ordinary things in an inflammatory way.  But in this particular case, I think I said something rather reasonable in a very reasonable way, and Al got riled.  It happens.  No one's always reasonable, everyone's sometimes wrong, and most of us, at one time or another, have raved like lunatics about something.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 08, 2016, 03:10:23 PM
It just seemed an obvious deflection.

Now my earlier call to black out their ability to post to social media.  That could be seen as an assault on 1st amendment rights.  I'd like to think I'd make an OK dictator.  I wouldn't however run for president.  :P
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 08, 2016, 03:38:44 PM
"It just seemed an obvious deflection."

I'll place that right with the remark that anything other than mockery is inflammatory.  Not your best moment.

It wasn't a deflection.  I was saying that I had insufficient evidence to say whether she was a lunatic, and that nothing I said affirmed or allowed her position.  It just is.

"Now my earlier call to black out their ability to post to social media.  That could be seen as an assault on 1st amendment rights."

Yes, if I wanted to hijack this discussion to demonize you as being anti first amendment, that's where I would attack.  But that's not my intent, and you are arguing against Al's straw man of the evil oppressive lawyer who gets on Ornery to demonize democrats.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 08, 2016, 03:44:38 PM
Quote
I'll place that right with the remark that anything other than mockery is inflammatory.  Not your best moment.

That, unfortunately, is more revealing than anything else.  Not a deflection or even a phrase that doesn't convey what I was trying to convey. 

I view this group as troublemakers who latched onto a cause as opposed to people with a cause who resorted to being troublemakers.  Cutting them ANY slack at all for what I consider reprehensible behavior that endangers others (and I consider the law enforcement officers "others"), is wrong.  I believe they should not be taken seriously. 

The only serious thing to say to them is, "Shut up, you are ruining this for those of us who actually believe in the cause you pay lip service to."
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Fenring on February 08, 2016, 04:02:07 PM
Here's a funny question for you, DW: What is the material difference to you between whether someone is looking for trouble and finds a real problem to make trouble about, as compared to someone minding his own business and is thrust into being a troublemaker because he has no other choice? In both cases the cause is the same and they are making trouble. The motive behind each case can affect the likelihood that they'd settle reasonably, perhaps, but maybe not every cause should be settled without much fuss? It would seem to depend on the specifics, no?

I think there's something to be said for troublemakers; they have a tendency to troll in just the right way such that they find cracks in the system that should be found. They can be a nuisance but they can also be agents for change. That being said there's 'troublemakers' and then there's people who want to die in a blaze of glory, so there's that. This group may have been a mixed bag, which probably goes with the territory.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on February 08, 2016, 04:05:20 PM
AI's point that if the previous video did not convince people nothing will, is perfectly valid.
Is it though?  I watch enough professional sports in HD where they show 3, 4 even 5 angles of play in slow-mo and what's "clearly true" from the first few angles is "clearly false" in the last.  And then you get a referee making a determination that doesn't match the video evidence, go to share your outrage with a buddy and discover he's a heretic too!  Interpretation of evidence, even video evidence is not always are clear as we would like.

My own suspicion of government (given their history) is that they won't release anything they think makes them look guilty, so when they release some, but not all, I assume there is a reason.  Maybe not fair, but where they've been caught even once planting evidence or lying about what happened (and they have) it places a big burden on them in the future.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 08, 2016, 04:14:17 PM
Agreed in principle. At what point in this operation were law officers in danger?

Most BLM protests put more people including officers in danger.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 08, 2016, 04:14:56 PM
Fenring, Not sure I could write up a check list or point to one defining issue.  In this case it was the context.
They were not locals.  The people they came to stand up for asked them to leave.  They shifted goalposts.  They made threats and encouraged others to violence.  They MAY believe in the land rights issue strongly but they gave the impression of people looking for an excuse to get in a pissing match with the government.  A dangerous one in this case.

There is something to be said for troublemakers.  There’s being a pain in the ass to those who are in the wrong and then there is making demands and proclaiming that bloodshed is the only alternative to complying to them.

A material difference?  One armed man is going about his day to day activities and is assaulted by a would be mugger whom he ends up shooting.  Another man is carrying a gun, goes to the most dangerous areas he can find and instigates arguments so that he can bait people into giving him legal cover to shoot them.

I viewed this entire standoff as fitting into the latter rather than the former. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 08, 2016, 04:19:57 PM
Agreed in principle. At what point in this operation were law officers in danger?

Most bUM protests put more people including officers in danger.

So if I come home and someone has broken into my house and threatens to shoot anyone who attempts to remove him, I and the local police should just let it slide because he's not likely to hurt anyone if we just leave him be?   :o

What is considered an acceptable amount of time to let the incident sort itself out?  After he eats all my food?  The third time he orders pizza?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 08, 2016, 04:23:59 PM
Your comparison of an abandoned government post to the home in the middle of the city, makes me embarrassed for you. Try harder.

What is reasonable depends on circumstances.  To my knowledge no one presented evidence of material harm by continuing the standoff. You yourself agreed withe on that. Do I need to quote you to yourself?
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 08, 2016, 04:24:56 PM
AI's point that if the previous video did not convince people nothing will, is perfectly valid.
Is it though?  I watch enough professional sports in HD where they show 3, 4 even 5 angles of play in slow-mo and what's "clearly true" from the first few angles is "clearly false" in the last.  And then you get a referee making a determination that doesn't match the video evidence, go to share your outrage with a buddy and discover he's a heretic too!  Interpretation of evidence, even video evidence is not always are clear as we would like.

My own suspicion of government (given their history) is that they won't release anything they think makes them look guilty, so when they release some, but not all, I assume there is a reason.  Maybe not fair, but where they've been caught even once planting evidence or lying about what happened (and they have) it places a big burden on them in the future.

This is a good point but we are not trying to determine with certainty if he would have shot at a cop given another few seconds.  We are (they will be?) trying to determine if it was a "clean shoot".  A person who had made previous statements about not being taken alive who was part of a group who had threatened violence.  The bar is a lot lower than, "yes, his toe was in bounds".

I'll concede that it may be possible under further review that people given the time and distance to analyze careful could conclude the officers were not in danger.  Which is different than saying they were not justified in the use of lethal force.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 08, 2016, 04:27:32 PM
Your comparison of an abandoned government post to the home in the middle of the city, makes me embarrassed for you. Try harder.

So laws can be broken as long as they don't inconvenience city folk?  Is that it?

Can we be embarrassed for each other? 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on February 08, 2016, 05:50:28 PM
I'll concede that it may be possible under further review that people given the time and distance to analyze careful could conclude the officers were not in danger.  Which is different than saying they were not justified in the use of lethal force.
I was actually thinking the other direction, that releasing more videos could cause people who currently doubt the police to decide that the shooting was justified.  AI was questioning whether they could be convinced, my muddled point was that sometimes 4 HD feeds are not enough and then lucky number 5 settles the issue and I'm convinced.  It's really tough to say what an individual sees in a single feed, particularly when they each bring a different context (do a short and a tall guy have a different view of whether that foot that's just out of frame could have touched in bounds?).
Quote
Originally posted by Pete at Home:

To my knowledge no one presented evidence of material harm by continuing the standoff. You yourself agreed with on that. Do I need to quote you to yourself?
Based on your article from a while back, I'm not even sure it was legitimately a "stand off".  With they way they could come and go, it was kind of like the difference between an old school filibuster and a modern one.  So long as someone stayed in the building, it was still "on," even if everyone else left.


Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 08, 2016, 06:05:01 PM
Your comparison of an abandoned government post to the home in the middle of the city, makes me embarrassed for you. Try harder.

So laws can be broken as long as they don't inconvenience city folk?  Is that it?


No.  Why are you being obtuse about this?  Whether an unlawful situation needs to be remedied with immediate potentially lethal force, depends on facts.  Depends on who is in danger.  Depends on the rights being infringed by the protest.  You understood this a few days ago. 

"inconvenience city folk"

Please don't play stupid and twist my words.  An armed takeover of someone's house in the city would have created more of a threat to any human life than taking over an abandoned government building with no human neighbors.

Saying that a situation doesn't require an immediate use of lethal force does not mean that we just let things go.  What I said before was, turn off the power, and arrest them when they leave.  That doesn't mean just let the whole thing go.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 08, 2016, 06:09:02 PM
Quote
I'll concede that it may be possible under further review that people given the time and distance to analyze careful could conclude the officers were not in danger.  Which is different than saying they were not justified in the use of lethal force.

Which describes the median case on the list protested by Black Lives Matter.  Person killed did not endanger police iminently but protocol said lethal force was justified.

At least 25% of the BLM cases I reviewed actually did have iminent threat to a police officer, e.g. the suspect was grappling for the cop's gun.


Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on February 08, 2016, 06:12:22 PM
Quote
My own suspicion of government (given their history) is that they won't release anything they think makes them look guilty, so when they release some, but not all, I assume there is a reason.  Maybe not fair, but where they've been caught even once planting evidence or lying about what happened (and they have) it places a big burden on them in the future.
It's fair to be skeptical, but not necessarily fair to be suspicious.  Your comment falls into the latter category where you are drawing an inference, like so many before you here on Ornery, that because you don't see evidence that leans your way, it must exist and be hidden, and that can only be due to nefarious and dishonest reasons.  Hence, the government is lying because we see no evidence that supports your point of view.  QED.
Quote
To my knowledge no one presented evidence of material harm by continuing the standoff.
Another bizarre statement, from a lawyer no less.  They trespassed on federal property, misappropriated vehicles, trashed the building, denied people the use of the facility, violated the privacy of people about whom data was stored on the GOVERNMENT computers, and sucked up a huge amount of local police, state officials and federal resources.  Somehow, that doesn't count against them.  And let's not forget that it was an ARMED takeover.
Quote
AI was questioning whether they could be convinced, my muddled point was that sometimes 4 HD feeds are not enough and then lucky number 5 settles the issue and I'm convinced.
What if 5 didn't do it and there wasn't a 6th?  Still unclear what really happened, I guess.
Quote
Why are you being obtuse about this?
...
Please don't play stupid and twist my words.
Way to go, let's "speak your mind, never argue".  That should be, "let's call each other stupid if they don't agree with me".
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 08, 2016, 06:21:32 PM
"To my knowledge no one presented evidence of material harm by continuing the standoff.


[Al makes his compulsive cheap shot at me being a lawyer].  They trespassed on federal property, misappropriated vehicles, trashed the building, denied people the use of the facility, violated the privacy of people about whom data was stored on the GOVERNMENT computers.  Somehow, that doesn't count against them.  And let's not forget that it was an ARMED takeover."

Think harder about the word "CONTINUING." , all the damage you describe was done at the onset.  Data could be preserved by cutting the power.  Who was using the facility between December and Febuary anyway?  You have yet to show what damage occurred by not going in immediately per your Alamo wet dream.

If you don't like how it was handled, take it up with Obama.  That's where the buck stops.  He's a lawyer too, you know.  And he happens to be the ultimate lawyer responsible in this situation. 

If you're angry with your little tin god, don't take it out on me, old man.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on February 08, 2016, 07:52:22 PM
Quote
Think harder about the word "CONTINUING." , all the damage you describe was done at the onset.  Data could be preserved by cutting the power.  Who was using the facility between December and Febuary anyway?  You have yet to show what damage occurred by not going in immediately per your Alamo wet dream.
Every one of those "material harms" CONTINUES as long as they remain(ed) in control of the facility.  But I don't understand why you think crimes they already committed shouldn't be counted against them and justify their removal.  It's the government's responsibility to cut the power to stop them from continuing to steal data from the computers? That makes it the government's fault that they did CONTINUE to do it, by that reckoning.
Quote
If you're angry with your little tin god, don't take it out on me, old man.
You can never argue without demonizing, can you?  Is Obama my "tin god" because I disagree with your way of solving this problem and Obama is President?  :) In my world that's a sign of a losing argument by someone who refuses to back down when they're caught manipulating the truth to bully others who disagree with them.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 08, 2016, 08:15:39 PM
You're pissed at Obama for how he handled this and you don't have the guts to admit you actually disagree with him, so you are using me as a scapegoat.  And I am tired. Get off my leg. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 08, 2016, 08:30:24 PM
Thanks Obama!

Quote
Obtuse:
annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
  I AM guilty of one of these...

The stupid comment almost hurt my feelings,  but then I remembered I wasn't in grade school.   Thanks for defending my honor though AI.  :P
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on February 08, 2016, 08:50:02 PM
Quote
You're pissed at Obama for how he handled this and you don't have the guts to admit you actually disagree with him, so you are using me as a scapegoat.  And I am tired. Get off my leg. 
You are so dense.  I told you once that Obama doesn't run around with a stopwatch and a whistle.  You have to learn how to talk to people without pretending to hold up both sides of the conversation.  You accused me of worshiping a tin god, remember?  Now you're accusing me of being pissed at the same tin god.  Make up you mind which imaginary person you think you're arguing with.  You don't seem to have a clue about me, however.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Seriati on February 09, 2016, 10:44:57 AM
It's fair to be skeptical, but not necessarily fair to be suspicious.  Your comment falls into the latter category where you are drawing an inference, like so many before you here on Ornery, that because you don't see evidence that leans your way, it must exist and be hidden, and that can only be due to nefarious and dishonest reasons.  Hence, the government is lying because we see no evidence that supports your point of view.  QED.
Maybe that's what you imagined I said, if it read that way them maybe I should have been clearer.

I don't believe, without actual evidence, that any government official acts other than appropriately.  I rationally believe that the majority do their duties with due regard to the way they should.  Even in a case like this, I would expect that officers that shot their fire arms did so because they believed there was a threat and not because of other conspiracy style reasons.

However, whether they believe evidence makes them look guilty is a different matter.  After the fact, governments, including ours, are notorious for not trusting people to understand the situation with the facts in front of them.  They bury and suppress and refuse to release evidence they believe makes them look guilty, whether it does so or not. So if they release one video and withhold others, there's a lot of logic to assuming they chose to release the one that makes them look best, and I can't see any logic in assuming they would do otherwise.

Governments are made of people, people do lie, but more significantly here, even if they mean well, they present their cases in ways that make them look better.  It's instinctive.  The bar is high in all cases but right now with the string of videos that we've seen the bar is even higher, and the only way to satisfy it is to keep everything above boards and fully disclosed.  Anything less may be appropriate from time to time, as there could evidentiary reasons or other reasons for secrecy, but should raise justifiable suspicion.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 09, 2016, 10:50:57 AM
Not to mention releasing footage of a death to the general public.  People were asking for the footage almost before they could have possibly notified the next of kin.


A death which may be leveraged as propaganda to incite other potentially dangerous incidents or make the existing one get more out of control...
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 09, 2016, 11:08:47 AM
Al, One of the nifty things of not being in denial about my religion, is it I understand that I can both believe in God and be angry with him.

After your long-winded rages about those who take the name of Barry in Vain, and accusing those who offend you of being the AntiBama, I think there's a far better case for you worshipping Obama than say Hitler being a Christian. 

So here in this Oregon case where you seem as frustrated as Jonah railing at his God on the edge of a still un-destroyed Nineveh, of course you pretend that Obama is not where the federal buck stops. Instead you vent your frustration on me, an unemployed disabled ex lawyer in Georgia. 

Get help.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 09, 2016, 11:11:17 AM
Not to mention releasing footage of a death to the general public.  People were asking for the footage almost before they could have possibly notified the next of kin

"Almost" covers a lot of bullcrap, amigo.  Because AFAIK the next of kin were the first on the news asking for the video footage.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 09, 2016, 11:16:00 AM
Not to mention releasing footage of a death to the general public.  People were asking for the footage almost before they could have possibly notified the next of kin

"Almost" covers a lot of bullcrap, amigo.  Because AFAIK the next of kin were the first on the news asking for the video footage.

True my 2nd point about it being valuable as propaganda outweigh the more typical reasons of being sensitive to the family.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 09, 2016, 11:25:03 AM
As for distrust of feds, sure, I plead guilty.  I scrutinize, from bad experience.  I had a client go to a federal grand jury in Wisconsin, where the FBI and IRS tried to make her testify against her pimp.  When they found she had counsel, and didn't want to testify, they called and turned her over to local authorities for an overdue parking ticket.  She called me from the hospital where they had handcuffed her to the bed until she passed out from diabetic shock.

Not the only time that one of my clients was taken by feds and tortured.  Immigration refused to let me see my client at the jail for 30.  hours during which the tortured him to force him to sign papers surrendering all rights to fight the deportation. (He was married to an American and had three kids with her and had also cared for 2.kids from her previous marriage.). The feds dismissed my appeal saying that it wasn't "a humanitarian issue."

So yes I tend to scrutinize evidence.  Neither of my clients who were tortured was "white" and both occurred during the Obama administration.  I don't think Obama changed anything for them.  I don't think those cases would have proceeded different under Bush jr.  I despise those who make their determination of the merits of a case by the skin color or religion or politics of the accused.  You who do this are the dregs of history. 
 
This case in Oregon was high profile.  Had the potential for triggering another OK city.  So yes, I assume Obama had it watched carefully by someone he trusted.  Good move of involving Oregon police so that it wouldn't be a federal bullet that killed, in case it came to that.  This has been managed by a very calm and clever person. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 09, 2016, 11:30:36 AM
Quote
I don't think Obama changed anything for them.  I don't think those cases would have proceeded different under Bush jr.
Do you have a candidate in mind which would change things?  If not, maybe you understand why AI gets on your case for your constant barrage against Obama.  I tend to stay quiet because it's not worth arguing about. 

You accuse AI of authority worship towards Obama but it's you who ascribe to him near omniscient control of every aspect of government.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 09, 2016, 11:35:13 AM
Quote
I don't think Obama changed anything for them.  I don't think those cases would have proceeded different under Bush jr.
Do you have a candidate in mind which would change things?  If not, maybe you understand why AI gets on your case for your constant barrage against Obama.  I tend to stay quiet because it's not worth arguing about. 

You accuse AI of authority worship towards Obama but it's you who ascribe to him near omniscient control of every aspect of government.

No, I don't know of a candidate who I am confident would change things.  I think Sanders would try to.

I don't ascribe omniscience to Obama.  I don't think he exercised any control or had any knowledge of my clients, even though one of them worked for a pimp who had been on some national show called "American Pimp".

You don't need Obama to be omniscient for him to know as much as we do about this case in Oregon.  And since it's his responsibility, and had the potential of leading to civil war, it would be sheer incompetence for him not to exercise some oversight.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 09, 2016, 11:38:37 AM
Quote
You don't need Obama to be omniscient for him to know as much as we do about this case in Oregon.  And since it's his responsibility, and had the potential of leading to civil war, it would be sheer incompetence for him not to exercise some oversight.
I'm not sure if I can just bow out of this converstation.  I do have a bit of a compulsion lately to post here to the detriment of my productivity...

I will say however that the idea this could lead to a civil war, to me sounds like saying that the zika virus could lead to a zombie outbreak.  I'm glad Obama is taking both seriously and keeping his personal hands on the reigns of government.   ::)
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 09, 2016, 11:39:01 AM
I don't make a "constant barrage" against Obama. Haven't said anything but praise for him on this thread.

I do poke fun of Al's Obama worship in response to his cheap shots at me being a lawyer, a Mormon, or a Christian. If he will desist his personal shots, I will mine.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 09, 2016, 11:43:37 AM
Quote
You don't need Obama to be omniscient for him to know as much as we do about this case in Oregon.  And since it's his responsibility, and had the potential of leading to civil war, it would be sheer incompetence for him not to exercise some oversight.
I'm not sure if I can just bow out of this converstation.  I do have a bit of a compulsion lately to post here to the detriment of my productivity...

I will say however that the idea this could lead to a civil war, to me sounds like saying that the zika virus could lead to a zombie outbreak.  I'm glad Obama is taking both seriously and keeping his personal hands on the reigns of government.   ::)

Then change the term "civil war" to something else appropriate.

For me the term civil war isn't limited to the big US civil war.  It includes the whiskey rebellion, the stupid Buchanan's blunder into Utah, and Oklahoma City.  Timothy McVeigh committed treason by making war on the USA.  you don't think this incident could have excited another OK City? 

Do you honestly believe Obama didn't at least put someone he trusted on this, to keep tabs? 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on February 09, 2016, 11:52:57 AM
Quote
So here in this Oregon case where you seem as frustrated as Jonah railing at his God on the edge of a still un-destroyed Nineveh, of course you pretend that Obama is not where the federal buck stops. Instead you vent your frustration on me, an unemployed disabled ex lawyer in Georgia.

Get help.
You think because you can make references to the bible that you are somehow ennobling your sometimes irrational rants.  There are people on street corners in every town in the country who could claim the same piety and resources.  It matters that when I point out that you twist my words and impute views and beliefs to me that are completely false that you tell me that I need help.  Heal thyself, brother.
Quote
I do poke fun of Al's Obama worship in response to his cheap shots at me being a lawyer, a Mormon, or a Christian. If he will desist his personal shots, I will mine.
I can't stop you from holding false beliefs about me, but it's clear that you will use any fig leaf of authority to hide behind rather than admit that you are wrong, which you are increasingly often these days.  Remember, I'm not the only one who points this out to you. Humility is supposed to be a strength of Mormon teachings.  You exhibit little of that here, but demonstrate hubris far more often.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 09, 2016, 11:55:32 AM
Pete, I use different terminology I guess.  I probably believe something similar to you, but the language you use I reserve for something else entirely.  So much so that it sounds ridiculous to me to see you write it.

Do I believe Obama told one of his advisers or aids or something like, "keep me in the loop on this"?  Yes.  Do I think he inserted someone into the chain of command?  Nope.
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 09, 2016, 12:01:22 PM
.
Do I believe Obama told one of his advisers or aids or something like, "keep me in the loop on this"?  Yes.  Do I think he inserted someone into the chain of command?  Nope.

Still puts him ultimately in control.  If things had proceeded differently, say someone with Al's priorities had been in charge on the ground, directions would have issued from above, or actual personnel changes. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: D.W. on February 09, 2016, 12:08:38 PM
I'd love to argue with you on this as it sounds beyond ridiculous.  But, ridiculous things are some times true.  Not worth the effort.  Keep blaming (or crediting) the King.  Your prerogative. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: Pete at Home on February 09, 2016, 04:59:23 PM
Put it this way: it's a different result than I would have expected under Clinton.  And that's a very good thing.  Since Bush Jr didn't ever have to deal with anything like this that I recall, it makes sense to give credit to the authority in charge.  Even if ultimately all he did was put the right people in charge and then stay out of the way.  It's leadership. 

 I try to give credit where credit is due.  My praise, like my criticism, tends to be precise and to the point. 
Title: Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
Post by: AI Wessex on February 11, 2016, 07:16:19 AM
To Pete and anyone else who gets warm and fuzzy about people putting their "faith" before their earthly needs.  Here's the kind of crazy that puts people at Malheur:
Quote
When one woman -- presumed to be Fiore -- asked David and Sandy about their families, a man responded, "God has put us on this path. Our families are already taken care of; they weren't in our lives much before all this because God made sure we didn't have that to weigh us down so that we could do this," one man said.
You don't need a magnifying glass to read between the lines, here.  He screwed up (or otherwise lost) his family, so his psychologically driven way to rationalize is to say that God had a higher purpose for him and removed his family so they would not distract him from that purpose.  He dedicates himself to some obscure but high-minded goal in the wilderness of Oregon, but pleads with the FBI not to arrest him if he surrenders.  He said, after all, people who have done worse things than him don't get arrested all the time.  Praise be!

That is echoed in Kim Davis' actions in Kentucky, where a woman who is a serial failure at marriage believes that God has given her a higher purpose to somehow "protect" marriage.  Her phony martyrdom is to deny legal marriage licenses to people she decides aren't worthy of the privilege.  Meanwhile, she refuses to resign her soft $80,000+ position as a mere functionary in the bureaucracy because God wants her to make a stand.  Take me to the Pope, please, so he can bask in the glow of my humility and service to God.

Some people see this kind of crazy when they look at Muslims, maybe all Muslims look alike to them.  They can see that in others and not see it in people "like themselves" because, well, those people are not "like themselves".  Christian self-delusion is just as crazy as any other kind, leading to terrorism but thankfully at a far lesser scale (at the moment).