Messages

2451

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

« 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.

2452

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

« on: January 11, 2016, 12:15:46 PM »

NM, re-read and it is clear you meant private sellers.

2453

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

« on: January 11, 2016, 12:08:51 PM »

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?

2454

General Comments / Re: Who do you trust with the nuclear launch codes?

« on: January 11, 2016, 12:06:05 PM »

When it comes to private individuals or businesses I think we should expect them to operate in the gray areas.  Businesses in fact we should expect them to be RIGHT up to the edge at all times.

When it comes to our government thought.  I don't think it's entirely naive to expect them to avoid actions that are obviously going to be illegal as soon as the mechanisms of law catch up.  Our parties have differing goals and interpretations of what our country SHOULD be as well as a very large overlap.  Acting against those ideals because it's TECHNICALLY not yet illegal is something we should punish them for in an effort to discourage that behavior. 

"Truth justice and the American way" should be more than catchy propaganda and bumper sticker fodder.  All governments play outside the rules now and then, but the closer we hold to our (stated) ideals the better, when it comes to the global community, as well as domestic moral.  That's not to say some calculate a loss of moral and the apathy that brings doesn't play into the plans of some.  It just seems, to me, to be a risky play and very short term thinking.

2455

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

« 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.

2456

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

« on: January 11, 2016, 10:48:17 AM »

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...

2457

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

« 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.

2458

General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts

« on: January 08, 2016, 07:49:01 PM »

The issue scifibum is that "proof" like this does our party more harm than good.  Seraiti does correctly point out the sloppy wording used in the interview.  That defense may not render your conclusion incorrect but it does discredit the "proof" label effectively.  When your argument amounts to, "you hold positions even when presented with proof contradicting you" then you have decided to hold yourself to a higher standard.  You can't just be "right" you must be unassailable in your argument.

2459

General Comments / Re: Must GOP mean "conservative"?

« on: January 08, 2016, 03:06:34 PM »

Too late to edit...
"Is Trump a "bad" candidate for the party because he has tapped into motivational forces that can drive his popularity?"

I think what I was trying to get at is;  Is Trump a bad candidate because he tapped into the "wrong" ideals, or elevated them above other ideals (or worse rejects the ideals of a "real conservative") the ones that are typically just paid lip service to but no REAL candidate actually believes...

Still reads like a mess, hope you all can parse out what I'm trying to say there.

2460

General Comments / Re: Must GOP mean "conservative"?

« on: January 08, 2016, 02:45:46 PM »

I genuinely believe that the GOP gets people to vote against their own interest by shrewdly combining different ideals into a "brand".  Democrats do suffer somewhat to the "toe the line" mentality but (probably mostly because I see myself as a Democrat) I feel the party is more ideologically consistent.

In that regard, I think Jeb is absolutely on to something.  To me the question becomes, are we seeing the natural result of "branding" less than compatible ideals into a whole?  Is this a continuation of the Tea Party fracturing?  Is Trump a "bad" candidate for the party because he has tapped into motivational forces that can drive his popularity?  Does whoever can get the votes get to drive the bus within the party and the differing and sometimes contentious factions prescribe to an "all boats rise with the tide" mentality?  Is the "real conservative" ship going to be torpedoed by Trump while the rest rise?

The way I see it, the "real conservative" Jeb is and is claiming Trump is not, has not in recent history been a viable candidate.  They may ALSO be, or REALLY be, this "real conservative" but it's appealing to other motivations within the party that gets them into the White House.  So ya, he can be pissed off someone who doesn't pay enough lip service to those ideals is ahead in the polls.  He may even be right to fear Trump may actually oppose some of those ideals.  The truth (at least my version of it) is that it doesn't matter.  Winning on those ideals alone is not possible.  It may have been in the past the core, or REAL, party identity, but it's not what gets the average American to vote Republican.

2461

General Comments / Re: Must GOP mean "conservative"?

« on: January 08, 2016, 12:40:43 PM »

Can you rephrase your question so that it is NOT a discussion on semantics?  I agree that we stretch and abuse our political labels but it will do little but confuse your question when you link it with this critique of language use. 

Unless you don't care about Jeb's point and would rather discuss the semantics? 
Attempting both at once will just be a mess.

2462

General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts

« on: January 08, 2016, 12:28:47 PM »

And when a significant portion of the nation become like that, then we are all in big trouble.

Only if you choose to attempt to reason with them instead of manipulate them.

You don't sit down at a table with sheep and pile up text books and explain to them why it's a good idea to agree with your goals and convince them they should aid you in achieving them.

You write off the group then try to make sure children aren't raised as more sheep or you use the same "dirty tricks" you bemoan in your opponents.

P.S. if you don't think liberals raise their own sheep you are suffering from your own blind spots.  When dealing with those in my own social circles, I pour more attention into the sheep stumbling in my direction than trying to herd those going against the tide.  I try to believe it's possible to wake someone up when they claim to want what you want.  Doing so when they claim to want the opposite of what I want seems impossible.

2463

General Comments / Re: Terrorized Americans

« on: January 08, 2016, 09:28:47 AM »

Wouldn't you agree AI that is the correct way to handle it under the law?
I much prefer that to the law labeling someone as a racist because they happened to get in a fight with someone of a race other than their own...

2464

General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts

« on: January 07, 2016, 05:04:05 PM »

Don't give me too much credit.  I "know" they are wrong as well.  I just like to understand how they tick. 

2465

General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts

« on: January 07, 2016, 04:59:36 PM »

Understanding it is what's important.  Unless you just like to worry about things you can't change. 

2466

General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts

« on: January 07, 2016, 04:32:17 PM »

Part of the support is a rejection of being told what to believe by those who claim to know better than you.  If you "prove" to them they are misinformed they MAY (just maybe) concede they were incorrect, but they will hate you for it and oppose you more strongly.  To many liberal is synonymous with smug smarty pants who delight in pointing out other's ignorance.  Actually doing so reinforces that stereotype.  There are people who focus MUCH more on the (perceived) condescending attitude than they do the information conveyed.  So much in fact that defeating or reducing the influence of those liberals is more important than the truth.

Throw into that any hint of religious persecution or derision (which is not uncommon) and they just stop listening.  The ability to direct that sentiment as well as playing off xenophobia and security or economic fears and it's not a huge shock that Trump has a following.  The size of that following surprises me a little I'll admit. 

The man is a master manipulator, like the Clinton's.  It's just not the same flavor we are use to seeing in presidential politics.  Most are, umm... more subtle?

2467

General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts

« on: January 07, 2016, 04:23:24 PM »

Well Obama is (along with many democrats) badly misinformed on guns yet I still support him.  When you aren't a single issue voter, you do tend to "let things slide" that you disagree with or would otherwise criticize.  When "your president" or "your candidate" does something wrong but on the whole is still miles ahead to anyone the opposition would field, you have a tendency to just let others point out these faults.  I also don't rail against him for pushing executive power for all it's worth.  I find it reckless as it sets bad precedent even if I do sometimes agree with his motivation to take action and sympathies with his frustration.

We are pretty much stuck with a two party system and the best we can do is try not to conform to all being cookie cutter partisan drones.  There is nothing wrong with siding with those who offend your ideals the least when another side offends them consistently and to a larger degree.  Politics is always a compromise.  We pick the lesser of two evils because most of the time, both options ARE dangerously ambitions (if not evil).

2468

General Comments / Re: California still leads the way (but not how Rafi and several others thought...)

« on: January 07, 2016, 11:03:12 AM »

The challenge now is to convince the rest of the state that it's worth it to pour money into Detroit.  AI is right (as far as I can tell by what little attention I pay to Detroit) that the private side is still showing signs of life.  Convincing everyone that a, "they get what they deserve for mismanagement" attitude, is going to hurt the state in the long run is no easy task.  It's not like we don't have other state wide concerns to deal with.  Pouring money into a single city which failed it's people spectacularly when the rest of the state could put that money to good use complicates things for Detroit. 

We may agree that resuscitating Detroit is a "good idea" but when it comes to state wide triage, most of us aren't sure it rates high on the list.  May be we are neglecting the best shot at long term economic opportunity by doing so.  Ask Flint if they think Detroit should be a priority when they are sipping poison in a state which has some of if not the best access to fresh water in the nation... or world.

2469

General Comments / Re: Hell bent on the Caliphate

« on: January 04, 2016, 01:14:36 PM »

Or when one is accused of misrepresenting someone because when parsed, a word has a different "most obvious implied usage" to the writer, than the one you claim is "correct".  Typically not much of a problem but in some cases (a surprising many cases on Ornery) they represent incompatible or contrary meanings.

Oddly, this seems to derail discussion into accusations of ill intent rather than listening to one side or the other clarify their intent.

2470

General Comments / Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution

« on: December 15, 2015, 01:55:39 PM »

I do think an oath would stop «some« violent islamists.  Osama Bin Laden himself expressed horror that the treachery at Fort Hood brought dishonor on Islam since the shooter had made an oath of loyalty.

Fair enough.  Maybe I'm wrong and it would work.  We are so far removed from an honor based society of that type I guess it just doesn't click with me. 

I have trouble justifying someone who wouldn't break their word with someone willing to go to such extreme measures to combat their enemies.  Honorable is not a title I would ever even consider using for someone who resorts to terrorist tactics.

2471

General Comments / Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution

« on: December 15, 2015, 12:59:31 PM »

(3) any measure that merely reduces a threat is useless because it doesn't eliminate the threat completely.

Does it though?  Pete, do you believe such a "test" would have ANY impact, no matter how slight?

Does this relate to your continued use of goat fornicators as a description?  In your opinion are the members of this group so stupid that such a test would "trip them up"?

I'm not trying to suggest you must show respect to those with offensive and dangerous beliefs.  I'm saying you are talking like a rabid crazy person spouting off nonsensical suggestions that would have zero impact. 

Stopping threats or those who idolize those hostile to our way of life from immigrating is something I agree with fully.  Your oath of reputation requirement is just dumb.  The only thing it accomplishes is laying further groundwork for state persecution of any religion that falls out of favor.   Something I must say I'm shocked to see put forward by you given the frequency you remind us of how awful that can turn out.

2472

General Comments / Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution

« on: December 14, 2015, 04:50:22 PM »

Why Pete?  Do you honestly believe that there will be those who's beliefs will not allow them to lie on that score if they did believe it?  So you embarrass or offend some and get to force some to lie?

Is there an interpretation of the Koran which forbids them to lie about such things?  I'm pretty sure there is an interpretation that gives a nod to lying to the enemy if the need arises.

Keep religion the F away from immigration.  Let's at least pretend to separate church and state now and then.  If we can't help ourselves on that front, then at least we should come up with policy that may have some practical application or benefit.

2473

General Comments / Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution

« on: December 14, 2015, 11:25:20 AM »

Lets say the issue was forced (and I kinda think it should be).  What changes?  They (those attempting to restrict or stop Muslim immigration or asylum seeking) shift to targeting "people from areas with strong terrorist presence as they represent a security risk."  There, no direct mention of religion, problem solved!  But wait, we want to let in the Christians...  Hmm.  Well, we could make allowances for persecuted classes of people from those areas.  Then all we need is for those Christians to be a minority or for any groups of Muslims to be actively killing some of them.  In at least large enough number that the news can build up a strong narrative about it to sway the people here that it needs addressed.

I guess what I'm getting at is, what changes besides the language used?  Now some language flies in the face of "what we stand for as a country" so blatantly that it must be changed.  Policy wise though, does this make a difference?  Is it a lie?  Do we, as a country, just need to have some policies 'framed' properly before we sign off on it and can sleep at night?

2474

General Comments / Re: Welcome to the New Ornery American Forums!

« on: December 14, 2015, 09:17:07 AM »

Is this still hosted by the OSC?  Shouldn't there be a link on the front page going back to his "front page" of Ornery.org?

As to "where is everyone?"  Rafi emailed me informing me of his current digital waterboarding; demanding he repent and reveal his true identity if he wants to be released from forum detention.

But more over, people probably haven't seen it yet, decide how suspicious they are it's not a some sort of fishing expedition, then decide if it's worth the effort to replace a bookmark.