The Captain
CCF Mod Squad
Posts: 4,896
Member is Online
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 14, 2016 12:27:39 GMT -5
President administers spanking to the short-fingered vulgarian who is the undisguised avatar of the Republican party. All he needed was a "suck it, loser", followed by a mic drop, to complete the scene. I'm not a fan of either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, but at this point, they're just clowning Trump. He's so far outmatched and outclassed by each of them it isn't even funny, reminding me a lot of the old "Bambi vs. Godzilla" cartoon.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 14, 2016 15:19:21 GMT -5
That speech was a thing of beauty.
If you're all done with president Obama after this term, I'd sure love him to become prime minister over here.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 14, 2016 16:11:39 GMT -5
Two things and then I have to leave for a while to get to work. 1) "Militarism" is not having "the greatest military force on earth." But why would I expect you to know that? (Sorry, that was snarky.) 2) Where is this world you're living in, where Russia and China combine forces to invade the United States in a co-ordinated land war? I used to stage simialr scenarios when I'd empty my box of army men onto the floor, but even when I was 9, I think I got that playing with army men and waging war were two different kinds of things. Again, I beg you, remove Red Dawn and Invasion, USA from your DVR. They are not instructional videos. Again, it's simply a hypothetical scenario. If you want to do more extensive background checks when dealing with the sale of firearms...I'm all for that. It should've already been done by now anyway. If you want to make automatic assault rifles illegal for the common citizen...that's fine by me. But when you want to take away ALL firearms from the public...then that's where I have an issue. First, let's go ahead and present my bona-fide's. I grew up with guns. I currently have three firearms in my house, two shotguns and a .357 pistol. I'm probably going out tonight with my middle son to pick out and buy a rifle for my 15 year old's birthday. I have a degree in political science and a law degree. I've been a practicing attorney, primarily in criminal law for 17 years. I worked for a Republican U.S. Senator when I was right out of undergrad. I was a libertarian. I'm now pretty liberal by U.S. standards, because "the free market" is a religion that doesn't actually work without extensive regulation. On the other hand, people should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies and in their homes (for the most part) which is something the right can't figure out. Honestly, I see almost nobody suggesting that ALL firearms be taken away from the public. The few who are, are as far outside the mainstream of American political thought as those who think that everyone should have access to explosives and any other weapon you can imagine. Ronald Reagan...you know...the Great Saint of the Conservative movement, supported background checks, waiting periods, and a ban on assault weapons (Letter to Congress signed by Reagan, Ford and Carter. articles.latimes.com/1994-05-05/news/mn-54185_1_assault-weapons-ban/2)As to your assertion that the reason the U.S. hasn't been invaded because "almost everyone has a gun", as a political scientist whose son is currently a history major, I can only say that that is horse hockey. I have never heard a single credible scholar suggest anything of the sort. First the U.S. was invaded in 1812, in 1916 and in 1942. The simple fact is that the U.S. has never faced an enemy with adequate force projection to actually invade the U.S. mainland since the early 1800s. I studied the history of the Cold War extensively at the end of the Cold War era and a land invasion of the U.S. from any quarter was never considered to be anything more than speculative fiction.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jun 14, 2016 19:38:04 GMT -5
Let's go with your scenario, China and Russia for some reason team up. Never happen, but it's your party. What makes you think that this hypothetical war will have anything to do with hordes of people invading the US? China and Russia would lob their nuclear missiles at us, we'll lob ours at them, and the only thing your AR-15 is going to be good for is, if you survive the nuclear holocaust, you'll be able to defend your last can of Chicken of the Sea tuna. At that point, I'd rather have gone on to the great beyond anyways. Also, your point of knives and banning steel and iron is off point (so to speak). Yes, you can kill someone with a knife. No, you can not kill dozens of people within the span of a few minutes. Can't kill numerous people with a knife in a few minutes? You sure about that, bud? In a crowded nightclub where you're shoulder to shoulder with people who are utterly shocked and traumatized? I'd say you most certainly could. I'm not for banning all fire arms, and haven't seen anyone here presenting arguments that they all should be either but just for the sake of argument in those countries that have banned all guns where are all the mass stabbings? The lack of an equal amount of mass stabbings in places like the UK or Australia would suggest to me that the knife argument is bogus. Meanwhile, I presented several rational arguments for owning a few types of fire arms that are not semi-auto and reasons why semi-auto rifles aren't necessary so how about providing rational responses to those or other ones that actually have been presented here? Of note, while I previously laid out some reasons why certain weapons are appropriate for home defense I ran across some interesting statistics about violent attacks on the home today that highlight even further why a weapon like an Ar-15 are unnecessary even in that situation: 1)An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurr each year in th US 2)A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries but only became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 of those burglaries. 3)Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when a resident was home and violence occurred. ( Simple Assault is is the attempt to cause serious physical harm to another individual. It also refers to causing the individual to be in fear or apprehension of an imminent battery. The crime does not involve physical contact with the victim. - See more at: www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-simple-assault.html#sthash.oDReBjrv.dpuf)4) 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of all households violently burglarized while someone was home faced an offender armed with a firearm. 5)Serious injury accounted for 9% while minor injury accounted for 36% of injuries sustained by household members who were home and experienced violence during a burglary. So with the cases being so rare and serious injuries or death so minimal why would you need a semi-automatic rifle to defend your home? I mean, even if I thought such a weapon was a good fit for home defense(which I don't) it would seem to me that the rarity of such a situation actually happening would be outweighed by the negatives of having such a weapon in the home.
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jun 14, 2016 23:18:22 GMT -5
How about Gun Control ? Here's a very interesting story from a magazine I get called The Week. Proof that gun control can work For proof gun control can work, you just need basic math...
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jun 14, 2016 23:32:35 GMT -5
I just don't see why one would need an assault rifle. I hunt on occasion with a group of friends and so I own a simple bolt action rifle, and you know in all my experiences I've never thought to myself, "Man, my hunting experience would be much better if I had the ability to fire off a dozen rounds in seconds." I've often found myself wishing I could carry a dozen more beers on my person while hunting, but never the need to fire more shots. Heck, it doesn't even make logistical sense as if you miss that first shot it doesn't matter if you can squeeze off another before you can blink because in that time the deer has already bolted so you don't need a semi-auto gun to go hunting. And on the matter of home defense it's the same; it just doesn't make any logical sense. It's 2 am. and you hear a noise that wakes you up, you jump out of bed to investigate it and discover that there’s a man at the front door who sounds like he’s trying to break in. You call 911, and just as you finish telling the dispatcher what’s going on, the guy kicks down the door and bursts through in a shower of splinters. If you have a hand gun you take a shot and if you miss you quickly turn around to retreat before the bad guy starts hosing down your previous firing position because your weapon is small and light and because of that you can also carry it with one hand and still complete two handed tasks like carrying your kid or barricading a door with out putting down your weapon. You could also go with a shot gun, it's sound alone is intimidating enough that many would be attackers might flee if they hear it and in the dark where aim is an issue you have a slight advantage as you just have to point it in the correct general area in order for it to be effective but with those benefits you lose a little maneuverability and you can't do the aforementioned tasked I mentioned with the hand gun unless you put down the shot gun. With an assault rifle though you have those same draw backs as the shotgun...but without the benefits as with a rifle aim is critical and it doesn't make a distinctive noise as a possible deterrent. About the only way a semi-auto rifle is of any benefit in a defensive situation is if you have large swaths of land and expect multiple bad guys to be firing at you from dozens of yards away. In that situation, a rifle would come in handy. But considering where most of us in America live (namely cities and suburbs) it doesn’t make a lot of sense...so I just don't see why there is any push back against those kinds of weapons. Don't forget their "defend ourselves/our land/our freedom from the government" reasoning, which is why you have the vast stockpiles of arms. Fewer people are buying guns, but many of those that buy guns are REALLY buying guns. Because, y'know, those'll help if the government comes after you with nukes and napalm and tanks and jets and helicopters and satellite guided drones and the biggest military in the world by an absurdly large margin...
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jun 14, 2016 23:34:04 GMT -5
small handguns designed for self-defense, particularly if you have a family, is just smart depending on your situation. Statistics say otherwise. Hell, something like 23 toddlers have shot people in the US so far this year.
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jun 14, 2016 23:38:01 GMT -5
Automatic weapons are illegal. The AR-15 is often assumed to be an automatic weapon because it's the civilian version of the M16 but it's nothing more than a bog standard semi-automatic rifle, one of countless designs that make up the most commonly purchased type of weapon in America. It's not even a particularly powerful rifle. Many jurisdictions have banned it for deer hunting because the .223 caliber cartridge is too weak to reliably kill larger game. IMO the biggest problem regarding gun laws in the US is a lack of understanding from the people who oppose them. So much time and energy is wasted in debates just cleaning up the misinformation. It reminds me of the SOPA act from a few years back, when people with a minimal understanding of the internet were attempting to write legislation to regulate it. If people could get past the stock "ban all assault weapons!" kneejerk response the actual issue at hand could get some work done. Anyways, I'll believe gun control will stop mass shooting when I see a convincing argument for it. So far I haven't, so I don't. If America somehow becomes a gun free zone (a huge breach of the constitution, not that liberals seem to care about that anymore) all that's going to happen is a flood of guns over the Mexico border (which liberals don't seem to care about much either) to meet the massive demand and fill the vacuum. Prohibition doesn't work. It didn't work with alcohol, it's not working with drugs, it won't work with guns. Not in America, where guns are a fundamental part of the nation's DNA and Mexico is just one shoddy and neglected fence away. All I know is that if one man in that club was armed and had made just one clean shot lives would have been saved. But no one had a gun because they weren't allowed to have them, while the criminal piece of shit brought one anyway. Oddly enough, people who intend on committing murder aren't concerned about obeying gun laws, although they're perfectly content to exploit them by committing their crimes in areas where they know people will be unarmed. This If you outright ban guns, then what's to stop these nuts from taking 10 mins to google a simple pipe bomb recipe that they can make from shit underneath the kitchen sink? Are we then going to ban household cleaning supplies because they can be extremely dangerous if used inappropriately? Banning firearms solves nothing. If anything, it puts responsible gun owners at risk. A huge part of why this country hasn't been invaded in over 200 years is because every citizen over the age of 18 without a felonious past is allowed to own and operate a firearm. Who do you think wants to invade you? Why aren't Canada or Japan or the UK or Australia being invaded?
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Jun 14, 2016 23:48:02 GMT -5
I grew up in the country with a half dozen guns in the house : a pistol, 2 rifles and 3 shotguns.
My dad, my brothers and I all grew up knowing how to shoot and hunt as well.
None of us hunts anymore but every couple of years we'll shoot cans off the back fence. You haven't lived til you've done that.
I'm for gun control, not complete abolition of guns.
I doubt the day will ever come when we would need them against our own government or another invading force, but, to defend your family, I'm comfortable with having one.
Criminals, some criminals, will still have guns, and still be able to get them, but many, many, many will not, and thousands of people will not die or be injured if we have better, beefier gun control laws.
If not now, after Orlando, and all the other school and church shootings, and everything else, then when ? More importantly, why not ?
Let's try it and see what happens. We've seen what happens when fear and the NRA drive the agenda.
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jun 14, 2016 23:53:25 GMT -5
"Nuance" and "detail" seem to have made no entry into your world view. Of course, I still recall trembling in fear when the North Vietnamese armada landed up and down the West Coast. And the terror when their Air Force dropped more tonnage on Washington DC than the United States had dropped on its enemies in all of World War Two. And then there was the mining of New York harbor. Thank God for the guerilla bands of John Birchers who defeated them. Oh, and "militaristic" threat? Sure you want to go there? Sure I'll go there The US and it's allies comprise the greatest military force on Earth. That's not opinion, it's just straight up fact. I for one, kinda like that. I take comfort in being well protected. But let's say hypothetically, Russia and China decide to join forces down the road and plan a takeover (not exactly completely out of the realm of possibility). Now, through sheer numbers alone, those forces combined would be able to breach America's shores and start a full-on invasion. And in that scenario, do I want to simply rely on the military to protect me and my family? Do I want to try and subdue potential attackers by throwing dishes at them or using coarse language? Again, I'm all for more thorough background checks for firearms. If you're a violent criminal or mentally disabled, you shouldn't own a tool that can easily take a life. That's just common sense, but that's also where it gets tricky. Knives and other bladed weapons have killed millions upon millions throughout history...so do you ban the use of steel or iron? There's always going to be batshit crazy or simply evil people in the world. They can kill in numerous ways. Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop that. It'll barely put a dent in it and only serve to essentially punish the law abiding, responsible gun owner who 9 times out of 10 owns maybe 1-2 pistols for the sole sake of protecting his/her family. Your avatar and username were well chosen...
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Jun 15, 2016 0:18:13 GMT -5
So the problem is that there is not enough people to support a third party candidate because not enough people will vote for one, as most people know their vote isn't enough. So it's a perpetual cycle of abandonment until enough people say "f it" to the Democratic and Republican party and vote third party. Which seems it would need like a civil war level change in voting habits. There is, of course, also the possibility that most voters still like what they're getting from the bug two. The Sanders movement proved that just because you make a lot of noise does not mean you win elections.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jun 15, 2016 3:20:16 GMT -5
small handguns designed for self-defense, particularly if you have a family, is just smart depending on your situation. Statistics say otherwise. Hell, something like 23 toddlers have shot people in the US so far this year. You're right, but to bring this back to Sam Harris, he went into fascinating detail about how many people who own handguns don't know how to properly store the guns and at the same time have quick access to them if needed. Once again, I don't own a gun, but the problem I see in many of these cases is a lack of education and responsibility. If your child can ever get a hold of a gun (or fall into a gorilla enclosure for that matter...sheesh) in your own home, you're simply not a good parent and probably shouldn't have children. Things happen that are always out of our control, but home gun death and kids getting into animal enclosures are examples of base negligence and stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Jun 15, 2016 5:47:57 GMT -5
Statistics say otherwise. Hell, something like 23 toddlers have shot people in the US so far this year. You're right, but to bring this back to Sam Harris, he went into fascinating detail about how many people who own handguns don't know how to properly store the guns and at the same time have quick access to them if needed. Once again, I don't own a gun, but the problem I see in many of these cases is a lack of education and responsibility. If your child can ever get a hold of a gun (or fall into a gorilla enclosure for that matter...sheesh) in your own home, you're simply not a good parent and probably shouldn't have children. Things happen that are always out of our control, but home gun death and kids getting into animal enclosures are examples of base negligence and stupidity. Hmmm... Not convinced by this. My parents were mostly great ones, bu I can assure you that if they hid a gun somewhere in the house, I'd have found it. Isn't the nature of kids to be curious?
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jun 15, 2016 6:36:42 GMT -5
You're right, but to bring this back to Sam Harris, he went into fascinating detail about how many people who own handguns don't know how to properly store the guns and at the same time have quick access to them if needed. Once again, I don't own a gun, but the problem I see in many of these cases is a lack of education and responsibility. If your child can ever get a hold of a gun (or fall into a gorilla enclosure for that matter...sheesh) in your own home, you're simply not a good parent and probably shouldn't have children. Things happen that are always out of our control, but home gun death and kids getting into animal enclosures are examples of base negligence and stupidity. Hmmm... Not convinced by this. My parents were mostly great ones, bu I can assure you that if they hid a gun somewhere in the house, I'd have found it. Isn't the nature of kids to be curious? You would have found it in a locked safe in a secure location? I grew up around family members who had hunting rifles and handguns in the house, often visible in gun cases, and I never got close to one because my mother watched me like a hawk.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jun 15, 2016 7:59:36 GMT -5
Hmmm... Not convinced by this. My parents were mostly great ones, bu I can assure you that if they hid a gun somewhere in the house, I'd have found it. Isn't the nature of kids to be curious? You would have found it in a locked safe in a secure location? I grew up around family members who had hunting rifles and handguns in the house, often visible in gun cases, and I never got close to one because my mother watched me like a hawk. Exactly this, there should be no way for a child to access your weapon if you keep it in the home.
|
|