Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - D.W.

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50
2401
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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)

2402
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2403
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2404
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2405
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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)

2406
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2407
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 19, 2016, 01:00:29 PM »
Oh...  I missed that their cause was just.  All makes sense now.

2408
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.


2409
General Comments / Re: The "white" Oscars
« on: January 19, 2016, 10:31:21 AM »
First, With humor.  Obviously...
He called it "the white BET Awards" in a tweet. 

Second, this lets me bring up a question that seemed almost too silly for it's own topic.
In Spike's condemnation/rant/protest, he used a format which struck me as odd.  I've seen it before as well. 

He Made Sure To Capitalize The First Letter Of Every Word For His Wall Of Text.

My 5 min of research on why someone would do this, or what it means resulted mostly in arguments of what the format was called (Title Case?) rather than what the intent was.  I saw some suggest it was a phone or word processor setting set wrong, others stating it was just done for attention or because it bothered some people.

Anyone have any other info or theories?  To me at least it seems like a highly unnatural way to type...

2410
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2411
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2412
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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".

2413
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 16, 2016, 11:59:36 AM »
I don't think Obama has anything to do with this...

2414
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2415
General Comments / Re: Must GOP mean "conservative"?
« on: January 15, 2016, 04:48:03 PM »
Quote
D.W. was joking, but
then you explain exactly the context (which I think at least among this crowd can safely be considered obvious) which makes it a joke.

Unless you thought I was just being absurd and calling up down or black white in some sort of toddler form of humor.

Thanks to both you and Pete for making it clear today I should not quit my day job to become a comedy writer or do stand up.

2416
General Comments / Re: Must GOP mean "conservative"?
« on: January 15, 2016, 04:02:33 PM »
And here I thought that was what made it a joke...

2417
General Comments / Re: Must GOP mean "conservative"?
« on: January 15, 2016, 03:44:15 PM »
I suppose the words being meaningless is a step up from them being either a badge of honor if you toe the party line or a slur if you are referring to the opposition.

2418
General Comments / Re: Must GOP mean "conservative"?
« on: January 15, 2016, 03:30:17 PM »
Maybe repealing Obamacare is progressive and maintaining it is conservative.  :)

2419
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2420
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 15, 2016, 02:17:58 PM »
That a riddle Pete?  A joke?

I don't know.   What laws?

2421
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2422
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 15, 2016, 01:45:35 PM »
Too late.  :P

2423
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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. ..

2424
General Comments / So about this moon shot...
« on: January 14, 2016, 04:09:35 PM »
Got around to reading the SotU address transcript and found the "Let's cure cancer" call interesting.  Is there any substance to it?  Can Obama do anything significant / tangible beyond just cheer-leading this goal?  I think it's a fantastic goal but...

Does the threat of cancer killing people equate to the cold war "threat" that gave us a sense of urgency to get our asses to the moon that fast?  The space race was... an actual race.  Then there is the whole question of if the reason we haven't already gotten around to it really is a lack of motivation / dedication / funding?  If it requires more funding is there a slight chance this speech represents a turning point?

Was this just something inspirational to toss out there because it's a non-partisan goal no sane person would oppose? (though they may not choose to allocate additional budget to)

2425
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2426
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2427
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2428
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2429
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.  :)

2430
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2431
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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...

2432
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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." 

2433
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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. 

2434
General Comments / Re: Dem filibuster for Audit the Fed
« on: January 13, 2016, 12:04:15 PM »
Part of me likes the "leave us alone and let us do our job without you messing it up" stance.  The other part hates anyone who says "just trust us."

2435
General Comments / Re: Dem filibuster for Audit the Fed
« on: January 13, 2016, 10:49:35 AM »
Is this JUST oversight?  The link doesn't mention any additional teeth given to force their hand.  If it's just a peak at the books it seems an odd thing to oppose.  If it costs a lot to do I suppose I could see opposition.  Not the partisan breakdown shown here, but some...  Good on Sanders for voting the issue not the partisanship game.

2436
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2437
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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. 

2438
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2439
General Comments / Re: let's cut the crap on gun control
« on: January 12, 2016, 04:32:00 PM »
Agreed, but it is an interesting point  when faced with impassioned demands that we "must act now!"  There is no reason to accept current gun violence or deaths.  Acting as if this is some new problem and every new incident MUST be the straw that broke the camel's back and action is surely REQUIRED now!?!

The push-back against this argument / plea should make it obvious by now that it is ineffective.  It doesn't change minds, it galvanizes the opposition.  Until people face the fundamental argument (as I see it anyhow) that gun rights is an embodiment of a philosophy of self determination, you aren't going to get anywhere.

When faced with a world that is seen as threatening and unsafe you get one of two reactions.  "Help!  Someone protect me!" and "Don't you dare impede my ability to protect myself!"  The gap between these two is not insurmountable.  Compromise IS possible.  At least until you treat the opposite reaction to your own as alien, irrational or idiotic.

2440
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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

2441
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2442
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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

2443
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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

2444
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2445
General Comments / Re: let's cut the crap on gun control
« on: January 12, 2016, 12:05:38 PM »
Don't have time to research it now.  Quick info I saw (from 2012ish) was that gun injuries was going up and gun homicides was still on the decline.  Without knowing more about the numbers that could just speaks to the effectiveness of our trauma surgeons and response times of ambulances. 

I thought in general crime was going down.  Including gun crime.  There's too much data lumped into the same pot to make a lot of sense out of it.  Though that does make it easier to pull out "evidence" to suit whatever point you are trying to make. 

I sometimes wonder if it's not both sides which are hesitant to see solid studies done on gun violence and gun ownership.

2446
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2447
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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.

2448
General Comments / Re: let's cut the crap on gun control
« on: January 12, 2016, 11:11:31 AM »
Quote
Is it any wonder that gun violence has mushroomed under this admin?
  It has?  Or we just talking the high profile mass shootings?

I got to say I enjoy the inference that we need to trust or respect or even like our politicians.  I just like mine mostly predictable.

2449
General Comments / Re: let's cut the crap on gun control
« on: January 12, 2016, 10:06:06 AM »
Because as pointed out in the other gun thread, the current tactics are to villainize the opposition.  You are either an unbalanced conspiracy theorists pro gun nut job or you are a gun grabbing tyrant trying to soften up the nation before your brutal oppression begins.

Getting funding for expanded ATF resources and staff and enforcing existing laws even if successful would be just more status quo and not sexy enough to motivate voters.  Any political capital spent is always measured in its ability to motivate or expand your voter base or shrink and suppress that of your opposition.  Enforcing existing laws does neither of these.  In this regard, NOT funding these resources and staffing works towards the "smaller government" or "fiscal responsibility" narratives for the republican side.  This DOES motivate their voter base.

Think more cynically and politics makes a lot more sense.  :(

2450
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« 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...

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50