An Anonymous Coward writes:
A gunman fired upon thousands of people attending a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip Sunday night, in a brutal attack that is blamed for at least 58 deaths, police say. In the mass shooting and panic that ensued, 515 people were injured. At least one of the dead is an off-duty police officer who was attending the concert.
Editorializing: Interesting how media always emphasize ISLAMIC terrorists, but downplay domestic terrorism as psychologically disturbed individual lone-wolfs.
Sounds to me like you're using "the blood of innocents" to make your own self-interested claim. And I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that what you're specifically talking about is gun ownership.
Let me be the first to say that yes, your right and that of everyone else to own devices purpose-built to kill people should be taken away. No one needs to own something that lets them rain death on a crowd from a hotel room three hundred feet in the air, more than a quarter mile away.
The Constitution, which you appear to claim to love and respect, was designed to be modified as the need arose. Well that time has come.
Nope and nope. Killing human beings is not that difficult, and it is a testament to hope and the decency of humanity that we don't see more things like this. Gun control is about political power, not actually about keeping people safe.
The answer to our problems has always been the same: we need to reduce corruption and stop punishing people for activities which do not expressly violate the rights of others. The islamic issue is much more complicated than the general western civilian's,
I can't wait till we move far enough away from oil that the world can leave the middle east alone and let them sort their shit out. That or Russia / China / US need to all team up and just clean house, then support moderate governments who will be able to get along with the world community. The latter is a horrible idea really which is more likely to fuck things up further.
I can't wait till we move far enough away from oil that the world can leave the middle east alone and let them sort their shit out.
Then why do the gun-lovers keep voting for politicians who want to start wars in the middle east?
The answer to our problems has always been the same: we need to reduce corruption
The gun-lovers happily vote for obviously corrupt people (of course, the other side does a lot of that too, so they're not excused either).
"The gun-lovers happily vote for obviously corrupt people (of course, the other side does a lot of that too, so they're not excused either)."
I read the first part of the sentence, and my blood pressures started going up. I read the parenthetical part of the sentence, and everything was good. Neither party is any better than the other.
Not true. One party has more of a history of warmongering in the middle east than the other. Bush started 2 full-blown wars there, and his dad started 1; the past 3 Democrat presidents didn't start any.
They both have problems with corruption, which is why I put in the parenthetical part, but notice I didn't put any such thing above it when I talked about mideast wars.
And, of course, no Democrat administration has ever started a war, or police action, or even just shot a few shells across a demilitarized zone.
Which president went along with the trumped up CIA "evidence", to start the Vietnam War? Keep looking further back - there were others who started wars that we might have avoided.
I don't need to look farther back: the parties have changed far too much, in many ways, in that span of time to where it's pointless to compare presidents from that long ago to ones from the last couple decades. A big shift happened with Nixon's Southern Strategy, where all the southern racists switched over to the GOP, but there were shifts before that too. It's only really relevant to look at Presidents that are still alive.
Are you going to spout some silliness about Lincoln being a Republican too?
So, what you're saying is, the tiger can change his stripes? I'm not buying that. Democrats in Lincoln's day were busy keeping the black man down - and Democrats today are still trying to keep the black man on the plantation.
More racist garbage just like jmorris. When was your last Klan meeting?
You're saying some part of what he said is untrue? Which bit?
My name, spelled backward, can't be made to rhyme with Klan.
Then Bill Clinton took on Nixon's southern strategy and really made it work. Just look at our burgeoning prison system filled with "super-predators" (you know that's code for "not white folk").
Whatever ... Democrats and Republicans share the exact same foreign policy positions. That's why Bush's two wars became seven under Obama. Anyway, if you think about it, almost every major war we've been in from WWI up to Afghanistan/Iraq, was initiated by a Democrat (*). I guess the Republicans were just trying to catch up so people wouldn't start to doubt their hawkishness, because unlike Democrats, they were mostly talk, no action.
(*) Grenada/Panama, major? Not really; Iraq I? kinda too short.
The stupidity on this board is incredible.
WWII (or rather, America's entry into it), for one, wasn't started by a Democrat, it was started by a Japanese invasion.
And Iraq I wasn't a "war"? Holy shit, you're stupid.
You apparently have no idea the extent to which Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into a corner with sanctions and by ignoring overtures for peace. http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2011/12/06/did-fdr-provoke-pearl-harbor/ [antiwar.com]
Nixon's Southern Strategy
Haven't I bitch slapped you already over that lie? You Progs need that myth to explain how Republicans are the real racists but it is a filthy lie.
Question: Do you believe Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon was a political newb? The only way your theory survives 10 milliseconds is if you answer "Yes." Go look up the election returns from both of Nixon's successful elections and notice the presence of the Dixicrat. So your theory is Nixon, a Progressive / Liberal governor from California, had a devious plan that he thought could get Southern racist Democrats to switch their vote to him vs both the Democrat and the Dixicrat and do it in sufficient number to carry a single State somewhere down South. Remember, the Electoral College is winner take all.
No, the Old South switched Democrat to Republican as the old Yeller Dog Democrats died off and air conditioning brought millions of snowbirds in. As for the switch in Black voting, many have tried to tackle that one, best explanation I have seen is Lyndon Johnson didn't change his mind when he switched from fillibustering civil rights legislation, he simply changed tactics. A civil rights bill + The Great Society simply bought the loyalty of most blacks and reenslaved them on a new plantation... but now they vote for their own oppression. A respected biography of Johnson quotes him as saying he "would have those nIgg*rs voting Democrat for two hundred years." He might be proven wrong but his prediction is on track for now.
You want to believe your racist drivel, go ahead, moron.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
People voting for pieces of shit is as reliable as gravity. Though it's partially because they rarely have another choice.
Bingo. You win the internet.
Gun control is about political power, not actually about keeping people safe.
Except it seems to work in places where they have it. You know, France, Germany, Japan. And before you start listing "terrorists massacres with AKs",
US - 3.60 murders per 100kFrance - 0.21 murders per 100kGermany - 0.07 murders per 100kJapan - 0
And Germany has 30 guns per 100 people. Same as Canada. So not exactly no guns, like Japan. But US has 112 guns per 100 people - more guns than people. And there is no control who has guns. So, you get what you get.
But yes, it is much too late to institute to institute gun control in US and actually reap benefit today. If you instituted gun control like in Germany today in US, it would take decades to get the numbers lower... too many unstable people have access to guns in US already.
Dead is dead, regardless of how it happens. That you would imply otherwise, by using "gun deaths" to imply that death is different depending on how one arrived at that state is misleading, deceitful, and vile.
That's so true! There are a lot, a lot of ways to kill a bunch of people. Before they go on a helicopter ride, you could loosen the bolts to the rotors. A helicopter has two rotors. You do them both to make sure. You loosen them both. The helicopter goes up, the rotors come off, the helicopter comes down. Everyone dies! This isn't the time to talk about gun control. For many reasons, this isn't the time. 🇺🇸
Take out our urban hellholes full of semi civilized orcs who are encouraged to shoot each other up by their Democrat overlords so they can harvest the sorrow for power, compare the numbers again. And don't worry, Europe is importing enough diversity they will soon experience the 'benefits' of a vibrant population.
And I think you refuted your own argument with the last line of your post. The number of guns in the U.S. has been high since before the Founder's told the Brits to bugger themselves but our murder rate only went insane in the modern Progressive era. Why was Dodge City safer per capita than our nation's capital today? Why do you think we have so many more unstable people? Forget gun control, try rebuilding a civilization capable of generating stable citizens again. The problem is people control.
Damn, out of mod points. That one needs to be +5 Bitchslap.
Ugh, you fools have zero concept of how seriously politicians took the race war. It is clearly evident from your earlier post where you try and spin Nixon's actions as NOT racist or something. The real answer is that cities grew rapidly and cultural warfare resulted in minorities without real life opportunities. This resulted in the urban ghettos, and the rest is history. You're a racist piece of shit jmo, and TMB are you encouraging this shit or does the +5 bitchslap go up against jmo's head?
The black community has multiple problems, I agree. What you don't seem to get are they're not the ones you're being told.
70-80% of black children are raised by a single parent. This has the single highest correlation with future poverty of any indicator. So if you actually give a damn about The Black Man, do something about a culture that's breeding piece of shit child abandoners en masse.
Well if the cops didn't lock half of them up and shoot another quarter, the numbers would likely be better.
No, they wouldn't. The ones in jail don't account for near the number of derelict parents. And if they want to stay out of jail, it's easy. Stop being a criminal.
Culture war, you seem to not understand... There has been a staggering amount of effort put into keeping minorities down, very specifically black communities. What you are doing now is victim blaming, "get them to shape up!" without addressing the issues that politicians and white communities created. Your blindness on this issue is awful.
There has been a staggering amount of effort put into keeping minorities down, very specifically black communities.
Bullshit. Prove your assertion. Nobody since the 60s has actually been kept down in any meaningful way by anyone but themselves and Democrats.
What you are doing now is victim blaming...
Bullshit again. The single biggest indicator of future poverty is growing up under a single parent, which 70-80% of black children do. That is not the white man's, or anyone else's, fault. Neither is a crime rate of 3x the national average.
They are not victims of anyone but themselves and the shit-stains who sell them on victimhood.
You know what's really fun? You're probably going to call me a racist for seeing them as equals and refusing to coddle them, then think yourself morally correct for seeing them as inferior and in need of your help.
I can see the argument that promoting single-mother households for black people by means of tax-extorted welfare is indeed promoting poverty among such people. When last I'd checked, that's exactly what welfare, Section 8, SNAP, WIC, etc. were all subsidizing: single black mothers with many children.
Many single black mothers with many children does not a rosy picture for black-skinned people paint. While mothers may not have been victims per se, their children most certainly seem to be.
Probably why it's illegal to own such a weapon without the extensive background checks that come with a ~$20k permit. It's not like the guy was on a suicide mission and could have simply stolen a truck to plough into a crowd of people or anything is it? Do you think trucks should be banned? What about cars? What about corrosive acids? What about boiling water? What about knives? What about pointy sticks?
I'm anti-pointy stick, personally. The Roomie's masculine child has an annoying penchant for swinging them around without paying attention to either the stick or what might be in its way.
Let me be the first to say that yes, your right and that of everyone else to own devices purpose-built to kill people should be taken away. No one needs to own something that lets them rain death on a crowd from a hotel room three hundred feet in the air, more than a quarter mile away.Probably why it's illegal to own such a weapon without the extensive background checks that come with a ~$20k permit.
Probably why it's illegal to own such a weapon without the extensive background checks that come with a ~$20k permit.
What in the world are you talking about? There's no "permit" required to own a machine gun in the US; there is a transfer tax to buy one, but that's only $200.
There is a background check, and it takes anywhere from three months to over a year depending how busy they are, but the real obstacle to buying a machinegun isn't the tax or the background check, it's that the machine gun registry was closed in 1986, so no more machine guns can be registered and thus legal for normal people to possess. The fixed pool of registered machine guns, combined with the ever-increasing number of people who want one, naturally sends the prices up, but it's made even worse because a bunch of rich people buy machine guns as investments. So a registered machine gun of a reasonably common type might go for $10k-20k, even though an identical gun that's not on the registry might cost $1k or less (to military or law enforcement, since nobody else can buy them); machine guns that are rare in transferable form (e.g. those that were brought to market shortly before the registry closed in '86, or foreign-made guns where few were ever imported) can go well over $100k.
I've made some slight simplifications there -- e.g. manufacturers and dealers are also allowed to own unregistered machine guns, in order to sell them to military and law enforcement customers -- but I've covered the essential points, and there's nothing in there like a $20k permit.
I certainly agree we're due for some new amendments, but not the one intended to give citizens a last resort when all legal and peaceful means of redressing govt. oppression have failed. Personally I'd start with one designed to prevent corporations from having so much influence on govt. that we're essentially an oligarchy. How about one ensuring that new technologies can't strip away every expectation on privacy? Or maybe one fixing the clusterfuck that is copyright law?The main thing I had in mind wasn't the second amendment, but in considering my reply (originally something much longer) I've come to the conclusion that upholding the 2nd (never a big concern in my mind before today) is one of the keys in preventing us from going full police state.There's a lot more to be said on the matter, but I'll leave that to people more rested and eloquent than I.
Huh...you live 200 years ago...Govt has tanks, planes, helicopters, heat seaking missiles etc etcimagine a corrupt govt taking on a "redressing" militia with guns even AR [whatever number you may wish to add here]...that can fire 100 or 1000 of bullets per second..they can just gas or nuke or wipe from remote....Nope that reason to have guns by the dozens is gone long ago except as an advert line for sellers of guns and their political cronies.......
'Cause the USA has won all the guerilla wars its recently been involved in. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan.
Yup! Rifles and other small arms are totally useless.
People in the US need to stop thinking the US military is who they would be fighting. When the shit hits the fan, the military will be on the side of the Constitution along with all us ex-military who are still self-sworn to defend it. Who we will most likely be fighting is a mix of poorly-weaponized IRS agents, big-city crooked police, and expensive mercenaries. We the Armed People could probably handle them without needing the military. With the states' battle-experienced National Guard units it would be a slam dunk. Why do you suppose "they" are so strident about disarming us at every opportunity. Remember the idea being passed around during the last big Disarmament Drive that all ex-military people were to be automatically declared insane and forbidden from having gun permits? This is what they were thinking about.
they can just gas or nuke or wipe from remote....
Our government won't even do that to Baghdad, yet you seriously think they're going to lob nukes at fuckin' NYC?? You're even more delusional than the wanna-be revolutionaries...