|
10390. Wombat - 7/22/2012 4:58:30 PM I'd like the source of that banknote, Concerned. I don't see the Soviets putting imperial symbols on their currency, somehow. 10391. judithathome - 7/22/2012 6:18:55 PM If Bush had called an assassination attempt on bin Laden, I would have thought less of him.
HE DID, dipshit...what do you think "dead or alive!" meant?
Bush Vows To Get Bin Laden Dead or Alive
10392. iiibbb - 7/23/2012 3:16:46 PM JaH
I won't say the state of gun control in this country isn't a factor in his use of guns to cause his mayhem. Obviously a sleep nutcase can get access to guns.
But, I've always maintained that there is no gun law that would prevent a nutcase of this kind from creating a tragedy.
I'd still rather keep the right to arm myself against agents of mayhem, or even standard violent criminals, than give up that right in the name of preventing tragedies that can't be prevented.
All of the "common sense" gun laws on the table, including the reinstatement of the so-called assault weapons ban, would not have created a condition where this guy couldn't have armed himself. Licensing -- might have -- since I just heard a report that he tried to join a gun club and his interactions were them were strange enough that they were going to deny him membership/access to their premises; so he was throwing off some kind of vibe over the past 3 months that might have been caught by an interview process.
I've never been against licensing, but I've always held that it can't be a token license--- in order to get someone like me to agree to it, it would have to mean something -- specifically, that I could carry a weapon in any manner of my choosing, in any location of my choosing, without having to deal with the mosaic of laws and regulations from state to state, and municipality to municipality. The mantra of licensing is treat guns like cars... and I agree -- but a license means I can drive everywhere.
It is a horrible tragedy. Things like this are going to happen in a free society... either by gun, propane bomb, mass poisoning, etc. 10393. vonKreedon - 7/23/2012 4:55:19 PM I pretty much agree with i3b3, we shouldn't try to outlaw and confiscate guns, but we should register guns and license owners. However I don't hold quite as firmly to the car analogy as he seems to, I'm happy to have some differences between states and localities. Also, just because you have a drivers license does not mean you can drive into a movie theater, or even on the sidewalk.
The thing about guns versus other means of killing people is that it is very easy and effective. I know how to shoot a gun at people, I don't know how to rig a propane bomb. Yes, I can probably find out on the internet how to rig a propane bomb, but I'd have to try it somewhere to know if it's going to work; I can go to Wade's gun shop and use their firing range to find out how to operate an AR-15. 10394. vonKreedon - 7/23/2012 4:57:12 PM Con says - "'Repudiation' means little or nothing anyway in this context - Trotskyites and Stalinists repudiated each other to the point of internecine warfare but they were barely different from each other as a whole."
Well that's an easy out, should I take that the next time some conservative group repudiates something one of their members says? But really, the repudiation was specifically about the violent tactics that the five arrested wanted the Cleveland OWS to take on, so yeah the OWS repudiated terrorism. 10395. iiibbb - 7/24/2012 12:23:08 AM The treat guns like cars mantra comes from the gun control proponents.
As far as licensing, if you want gun owners to concede their current freedom, licensing and regitration has to give something back... what would make it palletable to me is a smoothing out of the mosaic of restrictions that can be very inconvenient to anyone actually trying to follow the law.
As a for instance, we just moved to NY. I had to find a way to stable my couple of handguns because there is no legal way for me to move here with them in my possession, and licensing can tak 6 to 18 months.
You think a criminal or psychopath gives a shit about that?
The law only inhibits the law abiding. 10396. vonKreedon - 7/24/2012 3:29:08 AM The law does not only inhibit the law abiding, it makes it more expensive and risky for the outlaws. 10397. iiibbb - 7/24/2012 3:42:36 AM The treat guns like cars mantra comes from the gun control proponents.
As far as licensing, if you want gun owners to concede their current freedom, licensing and regitration has to give something back... what would make it palletable to me is a smoothing out of the mosaic of restrictions that can be very inconvenient to anyone actually trying to follow the law.
As a for instance, we just moved to NY. I had to find a way to stable my couple of handguns because there is no legal way for me to move here with them in my possession, and licensing can tak 6 to 18 months.
You think a criminal or psychopath gives a shit about that?
The law only inhibits the law abiding. 10398. iiibbb - 7/24/2012 3:46:19 AM I disagree. There is little risk and nominal expense if I were to have brought them here secretly... but I'm spending almost 1/3 their replacement cost to do it above board. 10399. iiibbb - 7/24/2012 3:48:50 AM the risk is in commiting a violent crime... low risk preparing for one. If you are commited to such an act, not much is going to stop someone 10400. vonKreedon - 7/24/2012 3:15:38 PM It's going to be more expensive and risky to buy a gun illegally than legally. The broader, the more pervasive, the legal restrictions the more expensive and risky the illegal alternatives. This is pretty basic prohibition market behavior. 10401. iiibbb - 7/24/2012 4:00:44 PM I don't agree. I think you can get an illegal gun pretty cheaply compared to market value... you can also steal them (although that is risky). I was watching a news report where a guy bought a gang gun for $50 or $100 - a shitty condition SIG, but still nicer than anything I've got.
What you can't get illegally perhaps is the precise gun you were after.
Maybe that price goes up with widespread registration, but again --- it doesn't put up the kind of barriers that would be needed to stop a determined individual. The barriers that would be required to stop them don't fit, and wouldn't actually stop the mayhem; they'd only stop the gun - maybe. 10402. vonKreedon - 7/24/2012 4:58:00 PM I'm certainly not arguing for gun confiscation, but I'm not sure how one can argue that controlling the distribution of guns would not effect the illegal availability of guns. As you say, outlaws could steal guns, but that is risky; it also would become more difficult if gun locks/gun safes were a requirement. Plus requiring registration and licensing would make it riskier for criminals to walk around with guns since any police stop would result in being arrested unless they legally owned the gun. An illegal market for guns would likely expand, but the cost would go up as would the risk if we no longer had and unfettered ability to sell guns person-to-person as we do today.
Plus, people who legally own guns would be required to prove that they know the law regarding guns and that they know how to safely own and operate their guns, things that are not currently required.
Registration and licensing wouldn't stop gun violence, but it would, IMO, reduce gun violence over the long term. It would specifically reduce unintended gun violence as owners would be required to safely store guns and be trained in safe use of guns. 10403. iiibbb - 7/24/2012 6:37:25 PM a) licensing and registration, where it exists, is very expensive and do not treat gun owners particularly well (Illinois is almost a gotcha state in terms of regulation). If society wants it to exist more broadly it would have to be cheaper and less Byzantine.
b) licensing and registration would have to mean something. It would actually have to convey some authority to the holder - in particular freedom from harassment by overzealous law enforcement. People who are genuinely trying to follow the law shouldn't be raked across the coals (so to speak)
c) places where guns are restricted should have the capacity to locker them while a gun owner conducts their business (police check weapons when they enter court houses). 10404. Wombat - 7/25/2012 3:06:02 PM Concerned:
Do you seriously beilieve what you have written below?
"According to themselves, Nazis are socialists. They used the Soviet swastika, red and black socialist flag color scheme and American Socialist salute. Nazis are statists requiring total government control of the private sector - much like what 0bama wants. Left Wing to the core.
Wombat - another Lefty without the intellectual capital to buy a clue. I'd say 0bama is much closer to Naziism politically than the average American."
I'd be interested in your sourcing for your statements in the first paragraph. 10405. judithathome - 7/25/2012 7:41:04 PM American socialist salutes? Are you serious?
Where do you think the American socialists GOT those salutes? 10406. vonKreedon - 7/25/2012 7:54:01 PM 
So were the Nazis Hindu? Are the Hindu's Nazis? Is the Hindu religion inherently communist? I'm so confused.
10407. Wombat - 7/25/2012 8:19:50 PM It's Concerned's unified theory of politico-religious affiliation. All religions/ideologies are "leftist" except for his...
Waiting for an answer to my question about sourcing. Don't make me do the research for you... 10408. vonKreedon - 7/25/2012 8:26:17 PM Yeah, the Russian Imperial Eagle does seem an unlikely choice for Leninist money. 10409. concerned - 7/26/2012 7:11:32 PM RE. 10404 -
I've already sourced this information in this forum in the past, perhaps multiple times so.
And of course, Occam's Razor says it's vanishingly improbable to be coincidence that the German National Socialists adopted both the American Socialist Party salute AND the provisional Soviet Government's swastika.
|
