ThinkFast: April 17, 2009
ThinkFast: April 17, 2009
An anonymous Bush official blasted President Obama for releasing the torture memos yesterday. “It’s damaging because these are techniques that work, and by Obama’s action today, we are telling the terrorists what they are,” the official told Politico’s Mike Allen. “We have laid it all out for our enemies. This is totally unnecessary.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said yesterday that “she would hold a hearing to examine the National Security Agency’s interception of domestic communications after new reports that recent wiretapping went beyond what Congress has authorized.” “These are serious allegations, and we will make sure we get the facts,” said Feinstein in a statement.
“I have not backed off at all from my belief that the assault weapons ban makes sense,” President Obama said in Mexico City yesterday, knocking down signals from the White House that it would scuttle efforts to revive the ban. He added, however, that he is not “under any illusions that reinstating that ban would be easy.”
Following the loss of roughly 5,900 jobs in 2008, “the number of newsroom jobs is now at a level last seen during the early 1980s.” 2008 saw “the biggest drop” in jobs that the American Society of News Editors “has recorded since it first started conducing its newsroom employment survey in 1978″ as job losses doubled from 2007 when the industry shed 2,400 jobs.
According to a report from the Office of Congressional Ethics, the new independent ethics panel created by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) last year “has started 10 reviews of lawmaker misconduct.” But the panel “hasn’t gotten to the point of deciding whether to refer any matters to the House ethics committee.”
The Texas Senate yesterday offered a “sharp rebuke” to Gov. Rick Perry (R) by tentatively voting 22-9 to “accept $555 million in unemployment aid from the federal economic stimulus plan. … A final vote will be needed before the measure goes to the House, where support is considered strong.”
In South Carolina, high school senior Casey Edwards has “filed a lawsuit asking the S.C. Supreme Court to decide who — Gov. Mark Sanford or the Legislature — controls $700 million in disputed federal stimulus money.” Edwards believes that state schools need the funds, and there are indications that the court will “act swiftly” on the case.
Top executives from “14 of the nation’s largest credit card companies are heading to the White House on Thursday for a meeting with senior administration officials” to discuss “efforts to increase transparency and help the economy.” New and stricter regulations governing credit card companies will take affect in July 2010, but several members of congress are now working to “accelerate that time line.”
While speaking at the Army War College yesterday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates “stressed he is not yet taking a position about whether gay troops should be open about their sexuality.” Last month, Gates said he wanted to push the decision “down the road a little bit.”
Cindy and Meghan McCain will make an appearance at Log Cabin Republican’s convention in Washington this weekend. Former McCain campaign chief Steve Schmidt will also make a speech urging “conservative Republicans to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage.”
And finally: When Arne Duncan joined the Obama administration as Education Secretary, he and presidential aide Reggie Love were looking forward to shooting some hoops. (Duncan played pro basketball in Australia and Love was a football and basketball star at Duke.) But because they’ve had a “busy first three months of the new administration, there apparently hasn’t been much presidential ball.” “We keep saying we want to do more, but we are struggling to sort of figure it out,” said Duncan.
Sign up here to receive our daily e-newsletter, The Progress Report.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“It’s damaging because these are techniques that work…”
_____________________________________________________________
You know, we hear this a lot from the torture crowd. And they would be more convincing if they could produce even ONE example of how torture provided reliable, accurate, and necessary information.
Until we get this kind of documentation, I see no reason why we should take the word of the torture apologists at face value.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:05 amSen. Dianne Feinstein “she would hold a hearing to examine the National Security Agency’s interception of domestic communications after new reports that recent wiretapping went beyond what Congress has authorized.”
why is it these ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES don’t give a damn when their constituents have been the victims of illegal wiretapping since before 9-11 but squeel like collective pigs when it effects one of them?
April 17th, 2009 at 9:06 amYeah…have fun with that.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:07 amCloser to a police state:
Who is next?
April 17th, 2009 at 9:07 amThey’re just mad because they didn’t get a chance to use the techniques on liberals.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:07 amAn anonymous Bush official, “It’s damaging because these are techniques that work,”
i won’t believe it until the abovementioned bush official proves it by swubjecting himself to such techniques on live television.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:09 amI’m still unable to understand why anyone needs an assault weapon here.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:10 amThe Texas Senate yesterday offered a “sharp rebuke” to Gov. Rick Perry (R) by tentatively voting 22-9 to “accept $555 million in unemployment aid from the federal economic stimulus plan.
_________________________________________________________
The Texas Senate probably realizes they have a nutcase for a governor. It’s one thing to argue against accepting federal stimulus money. But has there ever been a case (since 1861, anyway) of a SITTING GOVERNOR openly talking about seceding from the United States? Even though they are mostly Republicans, they are probably still a bit wigged out by Perry’s antics.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:12 amI have not heard anyone with expertise in the field of interrogation who says that torture techniques are valuable.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:13 amOn the other hand, I have heard people with knowledge say that torture paradoxically works against the interrogator because information obtained through torture is unreliable and misleading.
Anonymous sources cornering a reporter and giving him his point of view seems to be more of an apologist’s rebuttal to our now-confirmed suspicions.
Does this person think that our enemies did not know of these things until today? No, it was only the American public who was kept in the dark.
Former McCain campaign chief Steve Schmidt will also make a speech urging “conservative Republicans to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage.”
____________________________________________________________
I really don’t think most movers and shakers in the GOP actually care personally about gays getting married nearly as much as they care about keeping a key wedge issue alive. For this reason, I doubt that Schmidt will gain much.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:17 amWhat kind of bush “official” needs to be anonymous now? The bushies are no longer in charge, no matter what the “tea baggers” think. Why would a reporter grant anonymity now?
April 17th, 2009 at 9:17 amI don’t think Perry was all that popular in the state BEFORE this latest exhibition of belligerency and ignorance.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:18 amKay Bailey Hutchison is smiling pretty broadly these days.
If the torture techniques were so good that they resulted in pertinent information regarding threats, shouldn’t it be released to the public, to scare the bejeebus out of the next possible perpetrators of terror?
Unless, of course, said techniques were ILLEGAL!!!
April 17th, 2009 at 9:19 amGood torture
Operation Iraqi Freedom
No Child Left Behind
Culture of Life
Tax cuts for people losing their jobs and homes
Capital gains tax holidays to stimulate anything but numbers moving around
Wow they are/were Orwellian.
“Oh no, not the good torture! Don’t reveal that!” Sick phuques.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:20 amApologies in advance to watchdog for posting this before they had the chance…
http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=20647
April 17th, 2009 at 9:20 amDid difi and her cohorts think that the nsa was not going to tap into their emails and telephone calls? Now they are going to “investigate.” I am so in awe of her plan to “get the facts.”
April 17th, 2009 at 9:21 amWhen are we going to get past the torture works/doesn’t work bit?
It is against both US and international law, period.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:21 ammargerine Says:
I’m still unable to understand why anyone needs an assault weapon here.
Why, to help form a well armed militia, of course.
And to protect oneself and family from animals gone wild, like asian salmon on the Mississippi!
(post heavily laden with snark)
April 17th, 2009 at 9:22 amFollowing the loss of roughly 5,900 jobs in 2008, “the number of newsroom jobs is now at a level last seen during the early 1980s.” 2008 saw “the biggest drop” in jobs that the American Society of News Editors “has recorded since it first started conducing its newsroom employment survey in 1978? as job losses doubled from 2007 when the industry shed 2,400 jobs.
I was among those who lost her newsroom job a 1 1/2 weeks ago. The alarming fact about this news item is that we, as a society, are loosing a crucial group of people who dedicate themself to the integrity of reporting. Newspeople are the ones who sound the alarm and hold our elected officials accountable for their actions.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:24 amWHEN are gd “journalists” going to get that it’s not ok to offer annonymity to ex-administration “officials” who just want an opportunity to smear a politician ? There was no “Fact” or proof in that Bush officials’ statement that those techniques “work”. In fact there is plenty of documentation that these torture techniques don’t work. Why are journalists still letting Bush Officials lie to us?
April 17th, 2009 at 9:30 amNo wonder newspapers are falling out of business. The ONE thing they’re supposed to do well is investigative journalism. And this is how they do it.
An anonymous Bush official blasted President Obama for releasing the torture memos yesterday. “It’s damaging because these are techniques that work, and by Obama’s action today, we are telling the terrorists what they are,” the official told Politico’s Mike Allen. “We have laid it all out for our enemies….”
“… such as criminal prosecutors all around the world.”
Cheers,
April 17th, 2009 at 9:32 amThese “anonymous” secret sources are to be laughed at for the self-serving impostors they are. They have no credibility nor any place in any “responsible” journalism.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:32 amAn anonymous Bush official blasted President Obama for releasing the torture memos yesterday. “It’s damaging because these are techniques that work, and by Obama’s action today,
Yeah right – if torture worked – where in hell is Osama Bin Laden? Why hasn’t Al Qaeda and the Taliban been stopped? Whoever this fool is, they need to be glad they’re not going to be prosecuted. It was probably freakin’ Cheney behind the “blasting”.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:32 amStill no report on Roxana Sebari, TP; what’s up with that?
This young lady has been held in Iranian jails since Feb. She has dual citizenship, (Dad’s Iranian) and was a working journalist.
Now she’s been charged with espionage.
Isn’t this more newsworthy than Becky or Vannity?
April 17th, 2009 at 9:32 amThere is a good review by Scott Horton of the “torture” memos and the Spanish investigation on Democracy Now! He suggests that the Spanish Attorney General recommended against going forward because obama or his rep asked them to drop it.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:33 amkrystalview Says:
Following the loss of roughly 5,900 jobs in 2008, “the number of newsroom jobs is now at a level last seen during the early 1980s.” 2008 saw “the biggest drop” in jobs that the American Society of News Editors “has recorded since it first started conducing its newsroom employment survey in 1978? as job losses doubled from 2007 when the industry shed 2,400 jobs.
I was among those who lost her newsroom job a 1 1/2 weeks ago. The alarming fact about this news item is that we, as a society, are loosing a crucial group of people who dedicate themself to the integrity of reporting. Newspeople are the ones who sound the alarm and hold our elected officials accountable for their actions.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:33 am———————————————————
My question to you would be besides yourself where has the MSM been these last 12 years or so since cable news and Fox News especially came on and all good journalism when out the door with their integrity as salaries came in the door with infotainment and hate filled bigoted Reich wing.
Zimzone, I heard that Sebari’s trial has begun and the penalty could involve death. Some believe, however, that she is being held as a trading chip for some Iranian prisoners elsewhere.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:37 amRe Torture:
The most alarming thing to me is how the President seems to be softening up the American public to accept that there will be NO prosecutions for illegal activities committed during the Bush years.
This not only allows the precedent of ‘legalized’ torture, no habeas corpus, etc to stand,it also INSURES that it will happen again.
If there is no accountability, there will be no justice. Future lawbreakers will be encouraged by the lack of punishment now.
The US will have ceded any claim to be a force for good in the world.
It is very disappointing how President Obama seems to be leaving in place many of the most egregious power grabs of the Bush administration.
I guess that the more that things ‘change’, the more they stay the same.
See Keith Olbermann’s editorial Apr 16/09. He hits the nail on the head.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:42 amSen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said yesterday that “she would hold a hearing to examine the National Security Agency’s interception of domestic communications “These are serious allegations, and we will make sure we get the facts,” said Feinstein
the new independent ethics panel created by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) last year “has started 10 reviews of lawmaker misconduct.”
Time to pretend to get on the stick when their own privacy is violated.
Ten reviews of lawmaker misconduct.
Now there’s some oversight, go get ‘em Nanc.
To hell with you money launderers working together to impeach for and investigate and potentially prosecute war crimes and privacy violations. You just didn’t have the votes. Because most of you have reason to sweep it under the rug.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:43 amAre we losing total journalists or total newspaper journalists?
If the loses are from newsprint, couldn’t the decline just be chalked up to people getting more of their information from the internet and cable? New technologies and not necessarily less democracy?
April 17th, 2009 at 9:44 amBearCountry Says:
Zimzone, I heard that Sebari’s trial has begun and the penalty could involve death.
Thanks, BearCountry. That’s disturbing news. Roxana is a beautiful, talented young woman, who’s spent the last 6 years reporting from Iran to the BBC & others.
I hope calmer heads prevail & she can return home soon.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:44 amSenator Feinstein is upset that the wiretapping campaign extended to members of Congress??!! We are supposedly ALL equal under the law. Congress voted to make this surveillance technique legal, hence Congress folk fall under the same protections as ordinary citizens, meaning NONE. Of course Congress was spied on idiot, what do you think Bush’s motive was exactly for this bullshit because it sure as shit wasn’t to protect the homeland from terrorists. I am a stern advocate for abolishing these surveillance “laws” but until that time Ms. Feinstein should be acutely aware and not at all surprised that the Bush Administration spied on political opponents since as early as february of 2001. Where was it written in these questionable laws that members of Congress were exempt from being spied on?
April 17th, 2009 at 9:46 amchristopher wiwi – I come from a Newspaper backgroung. Reporters, photojournalists, and researchers are NOT the ones who decide what gets published. Those decisions are not make by the people who actually do the reporting. Senior Editors and Newspaper Management are the ones that set the “agenda”, if you will. I worked at a very conservative newspaper. Every single day, for 10 years, I voiced my concerns about the direction and focus of our daily paper. Sometimes I managed to shed a little light into the conservative darkness, but I also lost a lot of battles. Editors and managers are not journalists, they are bureaucrats. They are NOT the ones losing their jobs.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:47 amMatt. I share your resistance to gun control. Do you consider banning assault weapons a ’slippery slope’ to other forms of gun control?
April 17th, 2009 at 9:48 amAnd for anyone that is interested:
Federal Assault Weapons Ban
April 17th, 2009 at 9:59 amDefinition of assault weapon
“We have laid it all out for our enemies.”
Who are their enemies? The special prosecutors?
I think they just made the prosecutor’s case for them.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:07 am>An anonymous Bush official
Can go f#ck himself. Yeah, you know, I mean, you know how many criminals get away with crimes because he have these weird rules called “constitutional rights”…I mean think if the government had no restraints on its power…everyone would be completely safe//
Eat a d#ck you fascist pigs. I’m sure that somewhere out there, ones of dozens of smelly religious fanatics in beards are popping the champagne now that they finally know that when we crush thier testicles, we wont REALLY be wanting to cause them serious pain..
An the insect thing? Wow…yes, I’m sure the “poppa jihad bear got his head stuck in a bees nest” trick gained lots of actionable intelligence….
If this torture is so vital, why dont they come forward and specifically tell us exactly WHAT horrible things we stopped by torturing people, some of whom were completely innocent..
So far about the worst plot we had foiled by torture was a guy planning on burning down the brooklyn bridge with a blowtorch..
April 17th, 2009 at 10:08 amEven bet that the “anonymous Bush official” either authored or approved one or more torture memos and now spends a lot of time searching for countries that lack extradition treaties with the US and the Hague. We know it isn’t The Dick because he has already openly stated his opinion that neither international law nor pre-911 US law regarding torture apply to the US. My guess is Addington or Yoo but there are certainly other candidates.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:10 amSome regulation makes sense, but I am influenced by ’slippery slope’ arguments.
If for example we ban assault weapons and it’s accompanied by statistical data that shows a decline in attacks with those kinds of guns or some other decrease in gun violence or crime. Maybe that decrease would be due to banning the assault weapons, maybe the decrease is due to some other factor. But, a correlation would probably be made. “We banned assault weapons and violence declined.” “Why don’t we ban other types of guns, so we can decrease violence even more?”
April 17th, 2009 at 10:12 amThe “anonymous Bush official” seems to have missed the corollary to this story which is that we no longer torture. The United States has again re-entered the modern world and given up the tactics of the inquisition.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:14 ammargerine Says
April 17th, 2009 at 9:10 am
I’m still unable to understand why anyone needs an assault weapon here.
_________________________________________________________
Well, nobody outside of a military combat situation NEEDS one. But they may want one if they envision a need to fire lots of bullets in a short period of time without having to reload. And I imagine a lot of people “envision” such a need, for all those situations when one finds themselves surrounded by 50 terrorists bent on doing them harm — all of whom need to be dispatched quickly (these are people who get their “typical” scenarios from action movies).
I think a bigger problem we have than assault weapons is the number of loopholes where people who have no business possessing a deadly weapon manage to get their hands on one. Remember the guy in Pittsburgh who shot and killed three policemen? He obtained his guns legally, even though he had been discharged from the military due to a “psychological disorder” and his ex-girlfriend had slapped a restraining order on him because of his violence toward her. Violent and unbalanced. Should such a guy be allowed ANY kind of a gun?
Oh, and another thing about that Pittsburgh case? The shooter used an AK-47. But if he didn’t have one of those, he probably still could have killed the police officers with a plain revolver.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:18 am“Why don’t we ban other types of guns, so we can decrease violence even more?”
If the facts bear this truth, I’m 100% in favor.
All one needs to do is look at Canada and Europe and see the direct relation between gun control and reduced gun violence.
Besides, if you enjoy handling up on big things that go “boom” in order to compensate for some physical shortcoming, here’s a suggestion:
Join a gun club. There’s always some ex-military who will let you shoot their fully auto and semi-auto weapons as long as you pay for the ammo.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:18 am38. Dr. Hussein Matt Says: Keep the NRA out this debate; keep the far left out of this debate; let grounded individuals have a reasonable discussion on what, if anything, can be done to implement some reasonable gun laws.
Let’s dispense with the generalities. What do you propose since the last time anyone asked you specific questions about assault weapons, you left in a huff.
What’s the attraction about assault weapons? What is it about the weapon(s) you own, admittedly classified as an ‘assault’ weapon, that makes such a feature attractive?
April 17th, 2009 at 10:19 ambackup Says:
Are we losing total journalists or total newspaper journalists?
If the loses are from newsprint, couldn’t the decline just be chalked up to people getting more of their information from the internet and cable? New technologies and not necessarily less democracy?
Journalists go out and research stories from primary sources; blog “news” heavily relies on actual journalists to do that work and then aggregates (or distorts) the result. I’ve seen no evidence that there are new Internet news organizations that are hiring laid-off print journalists. Have you?
There are some very talented and dedicated bloggers who have the ability to produce real journalism, especially in specific areas or on specific topics (Mudflats up in Alaska being an excellent example), but they’re few and far between. Good analysis is another thing entirely, and there are certainly a lot of good writers producing that.
The decline in newspapers is a direct result of lost advertising, so yes, people are getting more of their information from the Internet — a lot of it because they can choose sources that provide just the news they want to hear, news that affirms already-held beliefs.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:20 ammargerine Says:
Of course, it would help if we knew what you think an assault weapon actually is. (Hint: when you see people in movies blazing away with machine guns… that’s not it.)
Dr. Hussein Matt Says:
Yup.
Hasta,
April 17th, 2009 at 10:22 amAssault weapons were banned and crime did decrease
then the assault weapons ban lapsed and crime continued to decrease.
also considering that assault weapons are used in fewer than 1% of crime it would be hard to correlate any crime with assault weapons. crime has continued to decline in the US for the past 15 years. And in the last fifteen years gun control has decreased significantly. Any correlation there?
April 17th, 2009 at 10:23 amI do not need a corvette that is capable of 150 mph but i enjoy it. I do not need a usda prime filet mignon but i enjoy it. i do not need a large screen plasma TV but it is great to watch. I do not need an ar 15 but it is fun to shoot. If everything was based on what we need this would be a horrible Country. Thankfully I still live in America.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:29 am50. Proud American Says: I do not need a corvette that is capable of 150 mph but i enjoy it. I do not need a usda prime filet mignon but i enjoy it. i do not need a large screen plasma TV but it is great to watch. I do not need an ar 15 but it is fun to shoot. If everything was based on what we need this would be a horrible Country. Thankfully I still live in America.
Other than the corvette (and the ar 15) I’m really not too worried about you shooting me or my family with a plasma TV if you get drunk and pissed off….
April 17th, 2009 at 10:32 amSo what about people that enjoy recreational drugs, same sex marriages, assisted suicide, and of course the occassional shooting of a rocket launcher…
April 17th, 2009 at 10:33 amThe “anonymous” source who’s upset about the terrorist techniques said the following: “It’s damaging because these are techniques that work, and by Obama’s action today, we are telling the terrorists what they are”
What the “anonymous” source is really saying: “You’re giving evidence to all the courts out there that want to see us hang for this.”
April 17th, 2009 at 10:34 amAnd playing devil’s advocate, out of those things listed, guns are the only one whose singluar design intent is to do harm to other human beings.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:35 amhanshiro the antlion Says
Other than the corvette (and the ar 15) I’m really not too worried about you shooting me or my family with a plasma TV if you get drunk and pissed off….
I am not worried about any of it. I Don,t drink. That is too dangerous in and of itself.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:36 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
The ban was silly and fruitless and made no impact on crime, especially considering that these military style weapons are only used in <5% of all gun-related crimes.
___________
Of course, those 5% of gun related crimes are pretty horrific… like the 4 Oakland cops gunned down last month, two of them w/ an AK-47, or the 3 Pittsbugh cops killed this month, w/ those “cosmetically featured” guns…
April 17th, 2009 at 10:37 amProud American Says:
Thankfully I still live in America.
___________
Your whole comment is idiotic.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:38 amYou don’t understand, Matt… these techniques only work if they have the element of surprise.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:40 am55.Proud American Says: I am not worried about any of it. I Don,t drink. That is too dangerous in and of itself.
That’s not really the point, is it? That’s just evasion on your part.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:41 amCan anyone decipher this?
Should I bother trying to figure out what this poster is struggling to say?
April 17th, 2009 at 10:42 amOnly teetotalers should be allowed to own guns?
April 17th, 2009 at 10:42 ambackup Says:
If the loses are from newsprint, couldn’t the decline just be chalked up to people getting more of their information from the internet and cable? New technologies and not necessarily less democracy?
April 17th, 2009 at 9:44 am
___________
From what I’ve heard, it’s not cable news or internet journalism that is killing the newspaper. It’s Craigslist. For many local newspapers, classified ads are still a tremendous source of income – at least, they were until Craigslist allowed people to advertise for free.
This is why I think the idea of turning newspapers into nonprofits might be a viable solution.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:42 amAnd playing devil’s advocate, out of those things listed, guns are the only one whose singluar design intent is to do harm to other human beings.
Not all guns are designed to do harm to other human beings. in fact all of MY guns including the AR 15 were built as hunting guns from small game and birds to Elk.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:43 ambackup Says:
Some regulation makes sense, but I am influenced by ’slippery slope’ arguments.
____________
Funny… Here, w/ gun control, you’re worried about the slippery slope, but were you as concerned w/ it over torture? Just asking? Or did you defend that?
No one is talking about banning skeet guns, or bird guns…
April 17th, 2009 at 10:43 amralph the wonder locust Says:
Should I bother trying to figure out what this poster is struggling to say?
_____________
Only if he’s holding a gun, ralphie… don’t stare, it might upset him. Caaaarefully look him over… can his eyes focus? Is he sweating profusely? Hands shaking? has he wet his pants?
If you can answer Yes to all those questions, “RUUUUUUUUUUUN!!!”
April 17th, 2009 at 10:47 amI didn’t say all guns.
And how is an AR-15 a hunting rifle? It might have been modified to be one, but the original design was far from it…
April 17th, 2009 at 10:47 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
The fact remains, the “assault weapon” ban made no impact on reducing gun related crimes.
__________
So… having AK-47s out on the streets is just the price we pay for living in a free society, I guess…
April 17th, 2009 at 10:49 am63. Dr. Hussein Matt Says:
What does my or anyone’s personal preference for a rifle have to do with this debate? Care to make a point and stay on topic?
It’s very much on topic when you defend a position from first-hand knowledge. You stated on another thread that you owned, as defined, an ‘assault’ weapon, then went on to advocate, presumably authoritatively, on the subject.
My question is a relevant and fair one. What’s the attraction to an ‘assault’ weapon. Is it semi or fully automatic capable? What is the advantage and/or purpose? What did you think you’d need/want it for? Home security? Hunting?
These are all absolutely relevant to this topic.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:49 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
Perhaps you need therapy to deal with your outrage and anger issues?
___________
Geez… I don’t see a lot of anger in his remark.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:51 amHow many times do the experts have to say this TORTURE DOES NOT WORK 0 ask the people who did the torturing!
April 17th, 2009 at 10:52 amOk, admittedly it can be used for hunting. It’s original design intent was, however, a military-grade rifle, using the standard NATO 5.56 round, which was specifically designed to be lighter, allowing infantry to carry more ammuniton vs. the 7.62.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:52 amyes folks, guns are the ultimate red herring….as long as you let billy joe and billy bob keep his guns you can tap his phone, search his house and listen to him pork his wife, all without a warrrant or probable cause. saddam ruled iraq with an iron fist for about 30 years..yet there was an ak-47 in almost every home..how well did those protect them from tyranny…? ..all these people freaking out about their guns, yet they dont mind trading away every other constitutional right for that one…strange and shortsighted..but then again not surprising
April 17th, 2009 at 10:52 amProud American:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20781848/
“The spray of bullets that killed a police officer and hurt three others this week came from something increasingly common on this city’s streets: a high-powered assault weapon, fast becoming the gun of choice for gang members and violent criminals.” Sept . 14, 2007
CRIME means any illegal act from breaking a window to murder.You don’t need an assault weapon or even a pistol to steal a car.
The article goes on to quote the Miami police observing an increase in assault weapon use.
When police encounter someone armed with an assault weapon whilst they generally only have pistols, they are outgunned, in ’stopping-power’,range and rate of fire.
The most common assault rifle is the AK-47 which is typically half the price of the cheapest M-16 (like a Bushmaster model)
The AK-47 fires 7.62 mm bullets which pierces present body armor.
Why do you want criminals to have the ability to so easily kill police? Will you pay higher taxes so that thicker armor can be bought for the police?
And whilst more CRIME is committed with handguns, assault weapons offer the criminal/crazy person the opportunity kill many more people than in using a handgun.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:53 amBecause nothing screams “common sense” like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV74rbgIsr8
April 17th, 2009 at 10:53 am> The far left’s paranoia of guns
> parallels the reich-wing’s
> obsession with abortion
Am I a paranoid elitist because I think one of the reqirements for owning a firearm should be a 3 digit iq and no predisposition toward violence? or is that asking too much?
April 17th, 2009 at 10:54 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
Don’t let emotions stand in the way of facts. The far left’s paranoia of guns parallels the reich-wing’s obsession with abortion.
__________
Well, usually I think you’re an okay person, but here…
First of all, I’m hardly FAR-LEFT, no matter how badly you need to paint me w/ that brush to justify your own paranoid stance.
Now, it is a SHAME you could not make that same pronouncement directly to the LIVING associates of the three dead Oakland cops. I’d LOVE to see the hijinks and hilarity that would ensue. I might even come visit you in the hospital afterwards.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:55 amHowever, I’d argue that the bulk of military derived hunting rifles are descedents or variants of bolt-action sniper-type rifles, not those designed for laying down large amounts of suppressive fire.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:58 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
What pronouncement do you want me to make? Your fake outrage is laughable. Seriously.
_______
You don’t have to make any pronouncement.
Obviously, You’re an ASSSSSSSSSSSSSHOLE.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:59 amI’m surprised Hillary let these come out! considering her intent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaL49GvUZXo
April 17th, 2009 at 10:59 amApril 20th, 1999
April 17th, 2009 at 11:00 am2 dead in hospital shooting
April 17th, 2009 at 11:00 am#81 – Chocolate Jesus Says:
———————————————————-
“Am I a paranoid elitist because I think one of the reqirements for owning a firearm should be a 3 digit iq and no predisposition toward violence? or is that asking too much?”
April 17th, 2009 at 10:54 am
The gun-lovin’ crowd has fallen for the myth “Owning a gun is protected in the Constitution ’cause the founders wanted all Americans to be able to protect themselves against an over-reaching government!”
What these people refuse to admit is that the government will always be able to field more weapons than any singe person or group of people. All the guns in the world didn’t help the Branch Dividians from being held responsible when they killed an ATF agent without warning him they were going to open-fire, and the government ended up being blamed when the BD’s set fire to their own compound.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:02 amDr. Hussein Matt Says: “The AR-15 is a great hunting rifle for a variety of game. It’s highly accurate, the 5.56 has enough punch without too much destruction to the meat, the low recoil allows for a fast second shot if needed, and it has very good range.”
And with it’s 20-, 30- or 100 round magazines, you can shoot that many quail, rabbit, deer, duck, wombats or lemurs in a day without the hassle of reloading!
April 17th, 2009 at 11:02 amI’m not addressing the 2nd amendment, nor taking any positions. Just playing devil’s advocate.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:03 amkrystalview
…and you survive after 10 years, your another American Hero
———————————————————
Casey Edwards your another brave American, you deserve mucho kudos for standing up to Sanford and the SC Legislature to demand answers. Now watch Bachmann call this kid being “Anti-American?”
Why isn’t McCain going to speak to these right-wingers in Seattle? Perhaps he doesn’t want to address ’same-sex marriage’ as “these people”, have rights too?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:04 am80. Dr. Hussein Matt Says: Try to keep up. I answered these questions before. Again, what does my personal preferences have to do with gun laws? I am for gay marriage, but my personal sexual preferences have nothing to do with the debate. So, care to make a point?
Try not being an a$$hole.
You didn’t answer these questions before. You are being evasive now. you have the opportunity to enlighten and educate; instead, you prefer to behave like a petulant paranoid who takes a stand on something he cannot explain.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:04 am“While speaking at the Army War College yesterday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates “stressed he is not yet taking a position about whether gay troops should be open about their sexuality.” Last month, Gates said he wanted to push the decision “down the road a little bit.””
Basically, the ban on openly-gay service members is jsut as wrong-headed and anti-American as was the old rule on a racially segregated service. The arguments against allowing gay service members to serve openly are the exact same ones used to support a racially segregated military, and just as wrong now as they were back then.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:05 amDr. Hussein Matt Says
________
And that doesn’t change the fact that you’re a coward and an ASSSSSSSSSHOLE.
Prolly sitting there fondling your ‘weapon” right now, aren’t you?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:06 am>I would love to see that as a requirement.
Alright then bro. I cant speak for anybody else on this board but your good by me. If your intelligent and peacable buy all the guns you want. Buy a frikkin rocket launcher. Please, just lets all agree that morons and wackos shouldnt have guns. I like the whole “mental fitness” requirement, I’d really really be amused to see the NRA making the “they’re trying to keep guns out of the hands of stupid people” argument and not sound like total whackjobs….
April 17th, 2009 at 11:06 amChocolate Jesus Says:
I like the whole “mental fitness” requirement, I’d really really be amused to see the NRA making the “they’re trying to keep guns out of the hands of stupid people” argument and not sound like total whackjobs….I like the whole “mental fitness” requirement, I’d really really be amused to see the NRA making the “they’re trying to keep guns out of the hands of stupid people” argument and not sound like total whackjobs….
____________
whackjobs??? You mean like “Dr. Matt”???
April 17th, 2009 at 11:07 amBull$hit, they already knew what they were…
April 17th, 2009 at 11:07 am99. Dr. Hussein Matt Says: Don’t act like a reich-winger and attempt to speak for everyone in one broad stroke. Thanks.
73.Dr. Hussein Matt Says: Don’t let emotions stand in the way of facts. The far left’s paranoia of guns parallels the reich-wing’s obsession with abortion.
You certainly do invoke a host of tired stereotypes and adHom labels to avoid specifics. Why does discussion of guns press your “Act Like A Dou(hebag” button?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:08 ampastcaring Says:
Bull$hit, they already knew what they were…
_____________
People have known what waterboarding was since the Inquisition.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:10 amI don’t own a gun, but I think the ownership of guns by citizens acts a check on governmental power.
I don’t know the history well enough, but wasn’t it a goal of some repressive governments of the past to get control of the guns? Control of the guns, control of the people?
I believe the motivation behind gun control today is to decrease violence. The jeopardy is that if we restrict guns to law enforcement and the military (both controlled by the government), what recourse do the citizens have if power shifts from basically altruist government to more repressive or coercise types of government?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:10 amhanshiro the antlion Says:
Why does discussion of guns press your “Act Like A Dou(hebag” button?
__________
I’ve noticed that too. Every time. He must be terribly frightened of the world to feel he needs his guns so badly. We’re all coming to get him!
April 17th, 2009 at 11:10 amIn South Carolina, high school senior Casey Edwards has “filed a lawsuit
Evidently the school system isn’t a total failure. A very gutsy and intelligent move. Maybe the rest of the state should pay attention.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:12 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
Gee, Miss Mattie… you’re the one claiming ordinary folks have a need for AK-47s.
The NRA must love you.
Good job!!!
April 17th, 2009 at 11:12 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
Yes, because calling someone an “arsehole” on the internet is so brave.
_________
You mean like you?
Oh, I forget so quickly… you’re 6′2″, weigh 195, and own guns…
April 17th, 2009 at 11:13 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
Why are you attempting to speak for others?
___________
I’m not. I’m just observing carefully, like a good hunter does.
You’ve projected several times this morning here. What are you so afraid of?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:15 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
Off to lunch! Have a great afternoon!
__________
You’re a coward.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:15 amI still don’t know how someone can say this with a straight face in this day and age.
Which is of questionable effectiveness judging from past results.
The same recourse we have always have. The power of peaceful protest, the power of voting, etc.
This arguement that someday it will be necessary for the people to violently overthrow the government makes for a nice movie plot, but is unrealistic in the US for a host of reasons.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:15 am106. Dr. Hussein Matt Says: If you need to know, I’m 6? 2?, 195 lb, my AR-15 is semiautomatic (vast majority are), I no longer hunt with it, but I use it every weekend for target shooting since it’s been a hobby since my youth.
Want to know my girlfriend’s cup size too?
Nah, she probably can share yours, depending on who’s pitching.
I’ll paste these more slowly since you have an aversion to answering them…again:
What’s the attraction to an ‘assault’ weapon?
What did you think you’d need/want it for? Home security?
What is it about the weapon(s) you own, admittedly classified as an ‘assault’ weapon, that makes such a feature attractive?
Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon?
Why does your sh¡tty attitude and paranoid response make you a good candidate for owning a semi-automatic weapon?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:16 amThe Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
Gee, Miss Mattie… you’re the one claiming ordinary folks have a need for AK-47s.
what does need have to do with it??
April 17th, 2009 at 11:18 am110.Dr. Hussein Matt Says: Ah, so you’re defending reich-wingers. How telling.
Eh? Are you doing bong hits with your rifle barrel?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:18 am#111 – backup Says:
———————————————————-
“I don’t own a gun, but I think the ownership of guns by citizens acts a check on governmental power.
I don’t know the history well enough, but wasn’t it a goal of some repressive governments of the past to get control of the guns? Control of the guns, control of the people?”
April 17th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Backup, the original intent of the second amendment was to act as a check on governmental power. The problem was that back-then, it took a good 30-secs/1-min to reload one single weapon, for both private citizens and the governmental troops. Now-a-days, with a weapon being able to shoot an entire clip in a few seconds (semi-automatic) and the fact that the government will show up with an entire swat-team to check into the possibility that one person might have a semi-automatic, how does this provide a “check” on governmental power?
I agree, in principal, that owning a weapon will give you the capability to defend yourself if you are prepared to deal with intruders. The problem I see is if you’re woken up at oh-dark-thirty and your weapon isn’t under your pillow locked & cocked, how easily are you going to be able to actually respond to an intruder?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:18 amDr. Hussein Matt…
I have a semi/full-auto M4-A2 Carbine with a couple of hi-cap mags, reflex red/green dot sight and laser.
Even if someone wore cardboard body-armor, I’m pretty sure they’d feel the righteous wrath of the 18 RPS .20g 6mmm plastic BBS at up to a 100 feet. I fear no aluminum beverage can!
April 17th, 2009 at 11:18 amThe jeopardy is that if we restrict guns to law enforcement and the military (both controlled by the government), what recourse do the citizens have if power shifts from basically altruist government to more repressive or coercise types of government?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:21 am—–
This specious argument seems to suggest I should be able to have rocket launchers and tactical nukes and stuff like that as well doesn’t it?
Proud American Says:
what does need have to do with it??
__________
Excuse me. You’re so right. You’ve had SUCH meaningful points to make here this morning.
Yes… yes… average Joes should just be free to “proudly” own an AK-47 for the same reason you, for instance, fantasize about actually “owning” a Corvette…
It… just… makes you feel like yer livin’ large, huh?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:22 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
The Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
Obviously, You’re an ASSSSSSSSSSSSSHOLE.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. You’re having a full blown hissy fit now. Typical far left extremist.
What’s with the condescension? How come you recoil at the thought of having to share with us the allure that assault weapons obviously hold for you?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:23 amwhat does need have to do with it??
–
April 17th, 2009 at 11:25 amSo you are suggesting the want argument again. How do you feel if someone wants a gorilla hand ashtray, a kilo of coke, a couple of late term abortions, and a shitpile of anthrax?
Dr. Hussein Matt Says:
Off to lunch! Have a great afternoon!
Cut and run…
April 17th, 2009 at 11:26 amHere’s the Chinese position in a nutshell:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-04/21/content_856308.htm
I’m sure they have fewer deaths from guns, but they also have this:
warning very graphic, I recommend not viewing it. Take my word for it, it’s a few young women (students) executed by a military firing squad by the side of the road. very graphic. But, here it is:
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20041202_2.htm
The point is that, if citizens object to what the government is doing, if they have no ability to resist (no private gun ownership), what recourse due they have? Is it trading liberty for safety?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:30 amDr. Hussein Matt Says
April 17th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Come on, be reasonable. Rocket launchers are not available to the public….never have and never will. We all want reasonable gun laws, but we, as progressives, have to be reasonable with our rhetoric if we want something done.
_________________________________________________________
I agree we (with the possible exception of a few nutcase extremists) all want “reasonable” gun laws. Apparently, you draw that line of reasonability between an assault weapon and a rocket launcher. Others draw that line on the other side of assault weapons. And still others might draw it on the other side of rocket launchers (although what their rationale would be, I don’t know).
Seems to me that the “slippery slope” can go both ways. And it might be helpful if each side can recognize that concern with the other.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:31 am129. dbadass Says: This specious argument seems to suggest I should be able to have rocket launchers and tactical nukes and stuff like that as well doesn’t it?
Actually, if the sole intent is to ensure out individual protection from government seizure, why isn’t it an effective argument to allow for greater firepower to level the field against the gains in weaponry from the government?
So, why can’t we be allowed rocket launchers since the government has so many and greater weapons to “quell citizen uprisings?”
A specious argument, admittedly, but one that enters in when the 2nd amendment is defended as some sort of citizen stop-gap to government tyranny…
April 17th, 2009 at 11:31 amshould have been a question mark after students. I don’t know if they are students or not.
e.g. (students?)
April 17th, 2009 at 11:32 amDemocrat Soldier Says:” Backup, the original intent of the second amendment was to act as a check on governmental power”
Make that abuse of government power.
The American colonials succeeded against the British for many technical reasons,not just because they had rifles too. They had to be organized and logistically supported–they had to become a formal army to be most effective.
I’ve never played online-Call of Duty or similar such combat games but having perused some forums and watched some videos of play, active soldiers who team-up in such games just for fun have a habit of pwning most of their competition because they know what they are doing.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:33 am> what recourse do the citizens
> have if power
> shifts from basically altruist
> government
> to more repressive or coercise types
> of government?
It wont be guns. As technology progresses, the disparity between the best weapons and average weapons will get greater and greater. And the ones in power are ALWAYS going to keep the best toys for themselves…what, exactly, are all the automatic weapons going to do to protect you when the government can microwave you through walls miles away? dont think its real.. check this out:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-482560/Run-away-ray-gun-coming–We-test-US-armys-new-secret-weapon.html
this is billed as a “non-lethal” device but basically what this sounds like is a directed microwave ray that can cook you from the inside out. now what, exactly, are your assualt rifles going to do against a weapon like that?
also, governments will ALWAYS have air superiority over civilians, which is a huge tactical advantage…what exactly are your bullets going to do against helicopters and jets?
very few people in america are advocating private ownership of rocket proprelled grenades and yet the russians decimated afghanistan with thier airpower until the afghanis got this high powered weaponry..so should we all get rocket launchers to protect us from the black helicopters that might be coming for us someday?
besides
propaganda and brainwashing are FAR more efficient tools of population control…why use brute force when you can use 1984 style “we’re forever at war with oceania” style tactics…?
look at how almost every congressman voted for the “patriot” act, something which basically torpedoed the great majority of our constituational protections against tyranny..
just tell them thier being attacked, and call those who don’t agree unpatriotic..a famous nazi once said it, and its very true
basically the most potent weapon we have against control by and abusive government is our minds. thats why fascists are so disdainful of higher education. stupid people are easier to control just as sheep can be herded by dogs but it usually takes something a bit more intelligent to herd people. anyone who thinks that foreigners are the greatest danger to their existence in america today is laboring under some deep, deep delusions,
April 17th, 2009 at 11:33 amConservatives are all in a tizzy over Georgetown covering up the symbol for Christ where Obama gave his Economic speech… of course what they won’t bother admitting is that they would have gone ballistic if they kept the symbol right above Obama’s head.
Although Obama didn’t mention Jesus’ name during the speech, he did refer to the Sermon on the Mount… Can anyone point me towards an example of Bush tying in one of Jesus’ actual lessons into one of his policies?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2230903/posts
It would be so funny if it wasn’t so sad.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:34 am5th Estate. I think you’re right, but could the colonialists successfully resisted the British without the guns?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:34 amIt’s not the guns… it’s the intentional incitement of fear and scarcity.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:35 amdbadass Says:
what does need have to do with it??
–
So you are suggesting the want argument again. How do you feel if someone wants a gorilla hand ashtray, a kilo of coke, a couple of late term abortions, and a shitpile of anthrax?
each one of the above I personally”FEEL” differently about however i have no problem if someone wants a fur coat, a gas guzzling suv, a hand gun, an assault rifle, shotgun, hunting rifle, baseball bat, kitchen knife, hummer,micro brewery, wine press or a swimming pool.
Thats just me though
April 17th, 2009 at 11:36 amWell said.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:38 am@ Chocolate Jesus
if an all out war broke out in America, which I find hard to believe will happen, Do actually think that the American military children would air raid their friends and family? I would hope that they would join them in their fight against an oppressive government. but they would need the guns first in order to organize an initial resistance
April 17th, 2009 at 11:41 amKinda hard to form a professional army with no weapons.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:41 am141. backup Says: 5th Estate. I think you’re right, but could the colonialists successfully resisted the British without the guns?
Before I obliterate this line of reasoning, I want to make sure I understand: Are you using this as a defense of gun ownership?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:42 amIn such a scenario, you’d more likely see large portions of the military refusing to carry out orders against their own countrymen, and then rebelling against the government that gave such orders. The number of weapons that would be contributed by individual owners or populist militias would be dwarfed in comparison.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:44 amWow.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:44 amI’m having a real hard time following what Proud is trying to convey.
Any interpreters?
wags Says:
basically the most potent weapon we have against control by and abusive government is our minds.
No wonder so many people feel defenseless then…
April 17th, 2009 at 11:46 am145. Proud American Says: if an all out war broke out in America, which I find hard to believe will happen, Do actually think that the American military children would air raid their friends and family? I would hope that they would join them in their fight against an oppressive government. but they would need the guns first in order to organize an initial resistance
Put the “Red Dawn” DVD down and back away from the monitor, Rambo….
April 17th, 2009 at 11:46 amtouche
April 17th, 2009 at 11:47 amMy 2 cents regarding the ban on sales of assault weapons:
You can keep selling AK47s and rocket launchers to wackos if you want, just keep them on your side of the border. The reason President Obama has been talking about the sales of assault weapons (while he’s visiting here in Mexico) is because those guns are being legally sold in the USA, then illegally exported through the border into Mexico, and they’re being used in the streets of our country in wild shootouts against the police and military forces.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:49 am143. Proud American Says: each one of the above I personally”FEEL” differently about however i have no problem if someone wants a fur coat, a gas guzzling suv, a hand gun, an assault rifle, shotgun, hunting rifle, baseball bat, kitchen knife, hummer..
I’ll take a hummer….oh, you meant the car…nevermind.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:51 am136:
April 17th, 2009 at 11:55 amI think we are making the same point…
backup Says:
5th Estate. I think you’re right, but could the colonialists successfully resisted the British without the guns?
_____________
Good Dog… back w/ this silliness AGAIN…
April 17th, 2009 at 11:57 amhanshiro. I believe that gun ownership by the colonialists helped enable them overcome what they believed was a repressive British government. I believe without that private gun ownership, the colonialists would have been unable to get the independence from England.
But, I’m open to why you disagree.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:00 pmDRxJapanese Beetle Says:
Wow.
I’m having a real hard time following what Proud is trying to convey.
Any interpreters?
__________
I’ll take a whack at it… he seems to be speaking Gibberish…
He’s mumbling… something… about…
“I feel really bad about myself… prolly has to do w/ the withered, atrophied state of my genitals… but if I own enough silly sh*t… mebbe I’ll feel better… and at least if I own enough guns, I can shoot somebody who has nothing to do w/ my personal misery… before I shoot myself…”
That’s the best I can do… some of the grunting and squealing doesn’t translate into English.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:01 pm5th estate says: The American colonials succeeded against the British for many technical reasons,not just because they had rifles too. They had to be organized and logistically supported–they had to become a formal army to be most effective.
Calling the Colonial Army organized or formal is a pretty big stretch. Valley Forge comes immediately to mind. The American Revolution was a classic formal, old world military versus guerrilla campaigns for the most part. Sort of like Viet Nam.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:03 pmbackup Says:
I believe without that private gun ownership, the colonialists would have been unable to get the independence from England.
____________
And yet another strawman.
WTF does that have to do w/ assault weapons on the streets?
Two words for you, b-cup…
***John*** ***Stewart***
April 17th, 2009 at 12:03 pmbackup: “The point is that, if citizens object to what the government is doing, if they have no ability to resist (no private gun ownership), what recourse due they have? Is it trading liberty for safety?”
SOunds reasobale, but in an armageddon like way.
In our system of government armed opposition to abusive/oppressive government policy shouldn’t be necessary–it’s why we have the right to assemble, the right of free speech, the power of the vote, regular elections and term limits and the division of power between the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative branches.
When those options and checks on power are nearly eliminated, then there’s a case for an armed rebellion by the citizenry—as occurred in 1776.
But as I recall, it has been the Republicans and conservatives on the whole who have repressed dissent and ‘rebellion’ against the status quo and/or how they choose to exercise their power when in office in order to establish a new more controlled status quo.
The very abuses that everyone should fear from their government have been most eagerly practiced by Republicans and most easily accepted by Republican voters–domestic spying, arrests of peaceful protesters, the suppression of of information from government agencies, the firing of government employees whose professional opinions did not wholeheartedly support the Administration’s planned policies.
Gun-owner ship is never going to be denied in this country–it’s simply too established. But owning guns is no guarantee against bad government. Whilst Republican gun owners greased their weapons, the party they voted for trampled on the constitution and nearly bankrupted the nation.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:05 pm>if an all out war broke out in America
it wont. there is no force in america capeable of going up against our military in a “all out war”.
at this point in our species technological advancement, there is no group of civilians in this country capeable of mustering the logistical equivalent of our government’s military resources.
who would do it? the guys who hate the mexicans? the guys who hate the gays? the KKK? glen beck and the teabaggers? the guy starts crying because “left wing bloggers” call him names. you think this guy is going to be your george washinton?
this isnt the stone age. this isnt muskets and paul revere doing the “one if by land, two if by sea”thing.
please explain to me exactly what group of civilians is going to be well coordinated and well networked enough to take on the us military and win….or even mount a nationwide resistance? how? with your CB radios? or maybe your cellphones that they’ve been tapping with your happy approval as long as they dont touch your precious guns..
please explain how and group of civilians would develop and maintain a nationwide commications network long enough to engage in a “war” with our military.. sorry, but your fantasies about being able to protect yourself from a tyrannical government with your guns arent to ever come true.. if you think that the dynamics of power dont shift as technology advances then your not really thinking about what technology is or how it effects society..
sorry, but no group of civilians is going to be so large or so organized as to be able to engage in “all out war”…
April 17th, 2009 at 12:06 pmyou can say some group could all you want, but that doesnt make it realistic..
155. dbadass Says: 136:
I think we are making the same point…
That’s why I cited your post first. I just took the tack that since gun owners love to claim the second amendment gives them the right to defend theyselves ‘ginst government revenooers, then the extension of that argument allows for the escalation of said ‘right’ to match the gov’mint proliferation of greater weaponry.
After all, when government drones are pickin’ off Bubba and Billy-Bob without warning, wouldn’t it make more sense for the Rotary Club to have its own surface-to-air missile battery?
2nd Amendment! 2nd Amendment!
April 17th, 2009 at 12:06 pm5th Estate Says:
Whilst Republican gun owners greased their weapons, the party they voted for trampled on the constitution and nearly bankrupted the nation.
Thankfully there are quite a few Democratic Gun owners.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:08 pmShorter version: Republicans let you keep your guns while in the meantime they shred the Constitution. In the end they come to take your guns. It’s called fascism baby…
April 17th, 2009 at 12:09 pm5th Estate Says: In our system of government armed opposition to abusive/oppressive government policy shouldn’t be necessary–it’s why we have the right to assemble, the right of free speech, the power of the vote, regular elections and term limits and the division of power between the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative branches.
Amen. If it comes down to needing guns, the system has already failed beyond repair.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:10 pmRepublic. A limit strictly on assault weapons is not a problem with me. The problem for me is the slippery slope argument. I would be comfortable if citizens had access to non-assault weapons. I just think that a ban on assault weapons could make a ban on other types more likely.
I think that banning guns (or weapons in general) could help reduce violence, but at a cost of liberty or self determination by the people. I am not sure if that sacrifice, if it’s real, is worth it.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:10 pm5th Estate Says:
Gun-owner ship is never going to be denied in this country–it’s simply too established.
____________
I agree completely. I’m not quite sure what sane ownership of guns has to do w/ AK-47s on the streets. This whole thread was like getting a car, hitting the gas, and suddenly having it go 90 mph w/ no warning.
I have no problem w/ hunting (I don’t like it but don’t want to try and stop it either…), skeet shooting, target shooting, collecting, or even owning guns and practicing w/ them for self-defense. I’ll prolly get around to picking up one these days for that reason myself.
BUT… I don’t understand the knee-jerk defense of thugs w/ AK-47s, as though they have a right or reason or need, or should just own such a nasty weapon for the sake of it all.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:10 pm157. backup Says: hanshiro. I believe that gun ownership by the colonialists helped enable them overcome what they believed was a repressive British government. I believe without that private gun ownership, the colonialists would have been unable to get the independence from England.
But, I’m open to why you disagree.
I’ll pose the question again since you didn’t answer directly. I’ll even elaborate to clarify my question: Are you using the American revolution to seriously justify gun ownership in this present-day environs?
Examine the intent behind #162 before you answer.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:11 pmIf it fails like this, who do you want determining your future? You and your neighbors or whoever happens to wrestle governmental control at the time?
April 17th, 2009 at 12:11 pmFeinstein hearing? Uh, no thanks. She’s as much a part of the problem as any senior ass from bushco.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:11 pmMake that #163…they switched ‘em on me…
April 17th, 2009 at 12:11 pm@Chocolate Jesus
my point is in the very unlikely event that our Government became so oppressive. the citizens of America would not have to go against our own military because our own military would join the citizens against the oppressive government
April 17th, 2009 at 12:12 pmThis is one usually made by people against the assault ban.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:12 pm>But, I’m open to why you disagree.
What part of “an ever expanding gap of technological asymmetry” dont you understand? this isnt colonial britain…its not hot musket vs musket action anymore..do you agree that things like photography, fingerprinting, databases, and DNA have made it easier for those in authority to arrest and derail individual criminals? do you not think the same analogy applies to civilians who would seek to resist organized government?
April 17th, 2009 at 12:12 pm170.backup Says: If it fails like this, who do you want determining your future? You and your neighbors or whoever happens to wrestle governmental control at the time?
Mantastic, if you persist as if this were a viable line of reasoning, I will beat you like a rented mule…
April 17th, 2009 at 12:13 pmHoodathunktick Says: “Calling the Colonial Army organized or formal is a pretty big stretch.”
Yeah, not as formal as the British Army.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:15 pmBut they weren’t just some plucky band of derring-doers as some like to imagine them–they did organize themselves, they had to, and they did it well.
backup Says:
The problem for me is the slippery slope argument.
____________
You’ve said this several times in regard to gun control.
This is ALWAYS a problem in life. Not unlike the extreme right who want to equate condoms w/ abortion and therefore murder.
What’s that old canard?
“Eternal vigilance is the price of true freedom”???
It’s funny… you’re afraid we’ll go too far if we limit SOME weapons, so we have to STOP it NOW. But why can’t we limit some of the more egregious ones, like AK-47s, and THEN make the same principled stand?
Don’t give me that slippery slope crap either. If you’ve got a real point to make, just keep making it. You resort to straw men waaaaay too much, like trying to sidetrack this whole discussion by going off on this “Could the colonials blah blah blah…” tangent this morning.
Like i said just above here, I have nothing against SANe ownership of guns. I having nothing against Dr matt owning an AR-15 for target shooting. Sounds like fun. I’m not quite sure why he can’t acknowledge that, or why he feels a need to defend gun-toting loonies w/ AK-47s.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:16 pmbackup Says: If it fails like this, who do you want determining your future? You and your neighbors or whoever happens to wrestle governmental control at the time?
You mean in case the USA becomes a Mad-Max Post-Apocalyptical world? The citizens should start building Thunderdomes, just in case.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:16 pmProud American Says:
my point is in the very unlikely event that our Government became so oppressive. the citizens of America would not have to go against our own military because our own military would join the citizens against the oppressive government
__________
This is just silly conjecture. Try coming back to Earth.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:17 pm170.backup Says: If it fails like this, who do you want determining your future? You and your neighbors or whoever happens to wrestle governmental control at the time?
I thought that my and your neighbors are running the government. isn’t that what elected officials are?
April 17th, 2009 at 12:18 pmbackup Says: If it fails like this, who do you want determining your future? You and your neighbors or whoever happens to wrestle governmental control at the time?
Actually, I am more concerned about keeping it from failing like that. Even if every American owned a gun or even a rocket launcher it would not change a military takeover to any great extent.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:18 pm>the citizens of America would not
> have to go against our own
>military because our own
>military would join the citizens
>against the oppressive government
bwhwahahahah. uhm…this sort of thing your describing happen in alot of countries? the miltary joining with the people and disobeying the government?
a soldiers job is to follow orders. right? or is a soldiers job only to follow orders, unless they think they shouldnt?
where the line? do they each get to decide what constitute “opressive”?
what your saying is that basically our military, on its own accord, is going to just “do the right thing” and refuse to follow orders if they are “opressive”?
in this hyptoethical scenario, do you envision some of the miltary being “good germans” and continuing to obey the orders from the government? if so, woudlnt that create a civil war in the military? or is every single soldier just magically going to know when to “do the right thing”? is every soldier going to have the same definition of “opressive”?
it seems like some solders happily fired on our own cilivans at kent state! how does that fit into your “soldiers would rebel against opression” meme?
April 17th, 2009 at 12:19 pmLuis Chapulin M Says:
You mean in case the USA becomes a Mad-Max Post-Apocalyptical world? The citizens should start building Thunderdomes, just in case.
___________
I hear they’re building barricades across the interstates leading into Texas as we speak… and that Chuck Norris will be crowned King and Glen Beck his Queen…
Pretty F-in’ snark-tastic!!!!!
Seriously, there’s a Russian political scientist who’s been predicting the collapse and fragmentation of the US for several years now. He’s gotta be feeling pretty good right now.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:21 pmSo, the government goes rogue.
Does that gun scope magnify to be able to pick off the organisms that a rogue government would surely drop on a rebellious faction?
Eh?
April 17th, 2009 at 12:21 pm>I thought that my and your neighbors
>are running the
>government.
>isn’t that what elected officials are?
oops…looks like you guys already have a case of friendly fire, backup is on your side fella!
April 17th, 2009 at 12:22 pmDid someone say “rocket launcher”?
Page dbadass!
April 17th, 2009 at 12:24 pmOh, and which guns can shoot away napalm?
Ballistic missiles?
Mortars?
Biological weapons?
Anthrax?
Pray, how does Cleetus’s AK-47 protect him against a drone he doesn’t hear coming?
April 17th, 2009 at 12:24 pmI’ll make a lot of concessions here. First, hanshiro, I know you’re trying to give me an out, but I’m wrong a lot. I don’t mind if you shatter a belief that I have. I’ll feel more informed. Additionally, it is very difficult to envision a scenario where citizens are fighting the U.S. government. And gun rights advocates are presently strong and gun rights don’t seem in jeopardy any time soon.
But, I do believe in this idea. To answer Chocolate Jesus, the Vietnamese stood up to the U.S. government with a similar disadvantage (although I know they had other backing). The U.S. government probably could have figured out how to win militarily, but I believe the will to do that diminished. I think although citizens with guns may not seem like a deterrent to a government significantly better armed; I think in a guerrilla context, they can be.
And the American colonialists weren’t really on par with the British Army and Navy. But, they held out long enough to partner with the French. That partnership, and possibly a diminished British will, helped the colonists prevail over their preceived repression.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:26 pmProud American Says:”Thankfully there are quite a few Democratic Gun owners.”
Who vote Democratic knowing the Democrats won’t and can’t take away their guns, and who didn’t vote for the government that then made torture policy, suspended habeas corpus, spied on the electorate and rigged elections and some of who presumably marched in the streets in protest whilst Republicans called them traitors and America-haters and unpatriotic.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:26 pmdoes anyone know what will happens if our miltary weaponry is transformed into manical killing machines by the allspark? will our soldiers just go along for the ride or try to bravely wrestle the deranged planes to the ground before they can carpet bomb us?
h#T d@mn im getting psyched to see the new terminator and transformers movies!
April 17th, 2009 at 12:26 pmI am not saying that every member of the military would assist the people. however in such a scenario in which the people revolted then many would join one side or the other. it has happened before in this very country and thankfully the good guys won. it has happened in many countries usually referred to as a civil war or a revolution. read about many of those in history class and it seems to me that the original “superior” military does not always win
April 17th, 2009 at 12:27 pmMay I add Willy Pete to your list?!
April 17th, 2009 at 12:27 pmIf, at that time, people are still electing their leaders, you have a good point.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:28 pmTed Strickland Pro Gun Democratic Gov. in Ohio. You do not have to be a repug to like guns
April 17th, 2009 at 12:29 pmNo one ever said ya did!
April 17th, 2009 at 12:30 pm>the Vietnamese stood up to the U.S. government with a >similar disadvantage
A: no, the disadvantage is not similar. in vietnam we didnt have microwave weaponry GPS, laser guided weaponry, robots,or weird freaky stuff like we do today. as i keep saying, the more and more technology advances, the greater the disparity..comparing warfare 30 years ago to warfare 30 years from now isnt even realistic…
B: the vietnamese had something in common with one another. their nationality..and thier skin…. comparing a foreign invasion to a civil war is a bit ludicrous. what is your imaginary army of americans fighting against “government opression” going to beleive in? “freedom”? gee, thats vauge!
how are they going to determine who “real americans” are? heck..youve got about 47 percent of the voting populace who voted for a lady who didnt think the outer 1/3 of america was “real”… how exactly are these patriots going to determine who the agressors are when everyone is the same skin color and the same nationality? do you forsee minorties on one side of this fantasy struggle of yours? in all those teaparty crowds did you see ONE non white person? would you imagine this fantasy rebellion of yours might happen to be perceived as a race war by some if the president at the time happened to be a minority?
April 17th, 2009 at 12:34 pm189. backup Says: Additionally, it is very difficult to envision a scenario where citizens are fighting the U.S. government.
Try the most recent Democratic Convention where there was illegal search and seizure and illegal arrests…
And gun rights advocates are presently strong and gun rights don’t seem in jeopardy any time soon.
Read the posts just above yours. How do you guard against biological weapons and drones that you can’t hear or see but can pick off a dime from a mile high? Pop guns’re kinda useless against a determined government.
And the American colonialists weren’t really on par with the British Army and Navy. But, they held out long enough to partner with the French. That partnership, and possibly a diminished British will, helped the colonists prevail over their preceived repression.
Which has no bearing whatsoever on the technology, firepower and nasty-a$$ weapons that exist today. Washington could no more envision marburg or ebola-based weapons, microwaves, unmanned drones or sonic disruptors than fly to the moon.
‘Google Earth’ should tell you something…
April 17th, 2009 at 12:35 pm>the Vietnamese stood up to the U.S. government with a >similar disadvantage
A: no, the disadvantage is not similar. in vietnam we didnt have microwave weaponry GPS, laser guided weaponry, robots,or weird freaky stuff like we do today. as i keep saying, the more and more technology advances, the greater the disparity..comparing warfare 30 years ago to warfare 30 years from now isnt even realistic…
B: the vietnamese had something in common with one another. their nationality..and thier skin…. comparing a foreign invasion to a civil war is a bit ludicrous. what is your imaginary army of americans fighting against “government opression” going to beleive in? “freedom”? gee, thats vauge!
how are they going to determine who “real americans” are? heck..youve got about 47 percent of the voting populace who voted for a lady who didnt think the outer 1/3 of america was “real”… how exactly are these patriots going to determine who the agressors are when everyone is the same skin color and the same nationality? do you forsee minorties on one side of this fantasy struggle of yours? in all those teaparty crowds did you see ONE non white person? would you imagine this fantasy rebellion of yours might happen to be perceived as a race war by some if the president at the time happened to be a minority?
April 17th, 2009 at 12:35 pmbackup Says:
That partnership, and possibly a diminished British will, helped the colonists prevail over their preceived repression.
___________
Good Dog… what a gumbo of nonsense.
Gun rights advocates to Vietnam to colonial America, all in one post.
Has anybody seen Mr Peabody, Sherman, and the Wayback machine around here this morning?
As far Vietnam goes, you could always pause to consider WHETHER or not we should have ever been over there in the first place. Indeed, perhaps that would be more important than indulging in tough guy fantasies about bombing them Veetnamese back into the Stone Age!!!
And no, the Domino Theory didn’t justify what we did. Vietnam is a quiet peaceful country these days. Hardly a threat to the rest of SE Asia and world peace.
And what did you say next? Something about “perceived oppression”???
“Perceived”???
What an odd choice of words…
The OWGs (Original White Guys…) who fought the so-called “American Revolution” were basically landowners who strangely enough, got those land entitlements from the very King they ended up resenting so much.
They certainly had no interest in the “rights” of the locals (Indians…), or their women, or their slaves. Democracy and human rights are a strange concept, and one we’re still working on.
And I have NO IDEA how any of what you said relates to AK-47s in the hands of street thugs.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:36 pm>If, at that time, people are
>still electing their leaders,
>you have a good point.
No, what you guys have now is a circle jerk. Get a room please.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:37 pm> Has anybody seen Mr Peabody, Sherman,
> and the Wayback machine around here
> this morning?
Whoa..I havent seen that show since puberty..what about Land of the Lost? I think we should always be prepared for the possibly emminent Slestak invasion…they had those fancy crystals, and all that mist?
April 17th, 2009 at 12:39 pmProud American Says:
Ted Strickland Pro Gun Democratic Gov. in Ohio. You do not have to be a repug to like guns
_____________
Kind of a dishonest comment.
They’ve had over 5,000 drug related murders in Mexico in the last year, many of them the result of weapons purchased in the US then smuggled across the border.
Do you want that sot of violence spilling across the border?
WTF does “liking guns” have to do w/ AK-47s in the hands of street thugs?
April 17th, 2009 at 12:40 pmThe Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
Proud American Says:
Ted Strickland Pro Gun Democratic Gov. in Ohio. You do not have to be a repug to like guns
_____________
Kind of a dishonest comment.
They’ve had over 5,000 drug related murders in Mexico in the last year, many of them the result of weapons purchased in the US then smuggled across the border.
Do you want that sot of violence spilling across the border?
WTF does “liking guns” have to do w/ AK-47s in the hands of street thugs?
how many guns from American market were used? number please
Thugs as in criminals should never have guns and if they have them on the street that is illegal. so why should I not have one at home
April 17th, 2009 at 12:45 pmsweet jesus those god@mned slesteks could just come through the time portals anytime..anywhere…f#ckign reptile b@stards could be everywhere..i need land mines..lots and lots of landmines..and roach motels..10 feet tall..with sarin gas inside..
April 17th, 2009 at 12:45 pmWhat you fail to get, b-cup is the way to win a war is not to kill, but to extensively disable.
If you can wound enough to cost $$ for recuperation, you tie up resources. If you kill a soldier, the body is bagged and shipped (simplistic, but basic)
If you wound a soldier, he get’s medivaced, tended, operated on and attended in a costly facility.
You bleed the enemy dry. So, if you want to defeat a citizen army, you don’t take away their guns:
You remove the perishable antidotes, antiseptics and ability to recover. It prolongs needed attending and ties up resources, plus slows down maneuverability.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:45 pmland mines are no good ruins the meat
April 17th, 2009 at 12:46 pmChocolate Jesus. I spent a lot of time in ‘the land of the lost’ – (there’s an opening). Nothing else on Sunday mornings.
Here’s some video, for those that never got lost:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTPWDlpzASg
April 17th, 2009 at 12:52 pmThe Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
They’ve had over 5,000 drug related murders in Mexico in the last year, many of them the result of weapons purchased in the US then smuggled across the border.
Do you want that sort of violence spilling across the border?
It’s not as if we like that sort of violence in _this_ side of the border, either =/
They caught someone a week ago, a 20 year old girl, with a freaking 50mm M2 Browning. THAT is the kind of armament that is being used against Mexican policemen right now.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:53 pm205. Chocolate Jesus Says: sweet jesus those god@mned slesteks could just come through the time portals anytime..anywhere…
Will Farrell vomits up another waste of celluloid replete with ripping off “The Rock,” “17 Again” and “Mysterious Island.” And that’s just the first pass on the lame-a$$ trailer.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:53 pmhanshiro. I don’t know. It seems that the problem with guns is that the contribute to crime and are used to commit violence. That’s not much a revelation.
But, they do seem to be a deterrent against government oppression. Maybe it would never come to pass, but it would obviously be more difficult for a government to repress a citizenry without guns than it would to repress a citizenry with guns.
The question in my mind, is what is the balance between ensuring public safety by getting guns off the streets and gun ownership rights that could help ensure the liberty of the citizenry.
Reasonable gun control makes sense. What’s reasonable?
April 17th, 2009 at 12:57 pmbackup Says:
But, they do seem to be a deterrent against government oppression.
____________
Back to this fantasy again…
One more time… Vietnam and the American Revolution are NOT valid comparisons.
Talk about your false equivalencies…
April 17th, 2009 at 1:04 pmATLANTA — The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths — murders, suicides and accidents — among the world’s 36 richest nations, a government study found.
The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000
http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
United States; 1993, 39% of households with guns.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:05 pm257,783,00 gun deaths
Luis Chapulin M Says:
They caught someone a week ago, a 20 year old girl, with a freaking 50mm M2 Browning. THAT is the kind of armament that is being used against Mexican policemen right now.
___________
I read about that earlier in the week. And no doubt, it (the gun) came from this country.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:05 pmold figures, I know, but the statistics are crystal clear.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:05 pmMore gun owners mean more gun deaths.
The Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
And no doubt, it (the gun) came from this country.
Evidently 90% of Mexico’s guns come from America
April 17th, 2009 at 1:06 pmRepublic. Fair points. I’m not trying to comment on the Vietnam war. I’m only trying to make the case that they were militarily out matched, but they prevailed; as an example that although the citizenry is outmatched militarily, in a guerrilla environment, their assess to guns, could prove a deterrent.
And the only way this discussion applies to banning assault weapons, is if you believe that there is a slippery slope in which a ban on assault weapons could lead to a more general ban on gun ownership.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:07 pmProud American Says:
land mines are no good ruins the meat
__________
Talk about non sequiturs…
Why don’t you try making a REAL point?
Or are you merely content to embarrass yourself here this morning?
April 17th, 2009 at 1:08 pmGun Deaths – International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
April 17th, 2009 at 1:09 pmaccess
April 17th, 2009 at 1:10 pmThe Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
I read about that earlier in the week. And no doubt, it (the gun) came from this country.
To be Fair and Balanced ™, in this particular case, they haven’t said if the gun was illegally imported from the USA or if it was stolen from the Mexican Army (which seems to have a few Brownings of their own).
Which, I know, kinda goes against my own argument, but it has to be said.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:10 pmYou keep flogging this meme, but it’s getting you nowhere.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:11 pmbackup Says:
And the only way this discussion applies to banning assault weapons, is if you believe that there is a slippery slope in which a ban on assault weapons could lead to a more general ban on gun ownership.
__________
You’ve said this repeatedly – the slippery slope argument – and we’ve replied repeatedly. Since you didn’t acknowledge my comment on this above, I’ll repost it…
__________
You’ve said this several times in regard to gun control.
This is ALWAYS a problem in life. Not unlike the extreme right who want to equate condoms w/ abortion and therefore murder.
What’s that old canard?
“Eternal vigilance is the price of true freedom”???
It’s funny… you’re afraid we’ll go too far if we limit SOME weapons, so we have to STOP it NOW. But why can’t we limit some of the more egregious ones, like AK-47s, and THEN make the same principled stand?
Don’t give me that slippery slope crap either. If you’ve got a real point to make, just keep making it. You resort to straw men waaaaay too much, like trying to sidetrack this whole discussion by going off on this “Could the colonials blah blah blah…” tangent this morning.
Like i said just above here, I have nothing against SANE ownership of guns. I having nothing against Dr Matt owning an AR-15 for target shooting. Sounds like fun. I’m not quite sure why he can’t acknowledge that, or why he feels a need to defend gun-toting loonies w/ AK-47s.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:12 pmEverybody knows the Colonials had the rights to own powerful assault weapons.
…
You know, to defend themselves from the Cylons.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:14 pmAlright, I’ve resolved to try to be less annoying here. I’ll try to stop repeating.
I’m okay with bans on assault weapons. I have a concern that a more general ban on weapons could jeopardize the liberty of the citizenry. We are a very long way from that. And, the access to guns does have negative consequences.
I am out.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:20 pmLuis Chapulin M Says:
Which, I know, kinda goes against my own argument, but it has to be said.
____________
Yeeeeeeeah…
I realized after I posted my comment that I was making an assumption, and it was self-serving. My bad…
Anybody know where I can get a great deal on a used flame thrower? I’m in the market…
April 17th, 2009 at 1:21 pmI bet Proud has one or two he can part with. He ran out of fuel years ago though, so you’re on your own there.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:24 pmWhasamatter, TRoHS? Don’t YOU get the impression that the federal government is only on its best behavior because they know that some of us are packin’ heat?
April 17th, 2009 at 1:33 pmThe Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
Anybody know where I can get a great deal on a used flame thrower? I’m in the market…
This guy seems to be selling them… you know, in case the Nazis attack again or something. Maybe for quail hunting? Hunt-and-dine at the same time.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:38 pm211. backup Says: But, they do seem to be a deterrent against government oppression. Maybe it would never come to pass, but it would obviously be more difficult for a government to repress a citizenry without guns than it would to repress a citizenry with guns.
This is demonstrably false. Look at police brutality during protests. Where is the deterrent aspect? When has the government been deterred about illegal search and seizure? Illegal detention? They can claim the law is on their side; what happens when you quote authentic legalities to a cop? Eh? Does he demur to your command of the law? Or does he slam your head against the car hood and let you stew in jail for a night or weekend? Even while your computer is being downloaded or erased…or both?
If the government wants to repress a citizenry, all they have to do is keep it out of the news. You probably have lived through thousands of repressive events that were stifled in the media. How the hell would you know?
Plus, let’s say the government wanted to take your guns. Don’t you realize how bloody easy that would be? They could produce bogus probable cause, plant evidence and tie you up in court for decades, not to mention seizing your computer then planting kiddy porn or pirated music, then drop a press release in the news that you were ’suspected’ of internet crime/terrorism.
Nobody’ll want to touch you with a ten-foot-pole. You get destroyed, your guns get impounded, and you’re screwed by a government agency who has hundreds of paid minds to pull this kinda crap dozens of times a day.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:15 pmLuis Chapulin M Says:
Errr… no. That’s been thouroughly debunked.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/
Hasta,
April 17th, 2009 at 3:34 pmyelena amorbus alternatus vee Says: (213)
(219)
So, from 1994 to 2001 the rate went from 14.24 to 10.26. And this is all deaths, including suicides and accidents.
At the same time, a whole bunch of states passed concealed carry laws making it easier for people to carry concealed, and an AW purchase ban was passed which ironically (but oh so predictibly) caused sales of retooled semi-auto rifles to actually increase.
OK. Sounds like progress to me!
Hasta,
April 17th, 2009 at 4:00 pmBurson-Marsteller joined with Michael Chertoff to start The Chertoff Group, a risk management consulting firm. It’s a sad mix of blue and red miscreants.
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2009/04/state-of-risk-management-consulting.html
April 17th, 2009 at 4:03 pm231.Cicero Says: Errr… no. That’s been thouroughly debunked.
In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced — and of those, 90 percent — 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover — were found to have come from the U.S.
But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.
In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.
Errr… no, it hasn’t been “debunked.”
It’s a simple wordplay with semantics, but the statistic is a valid representative sampling. You’ll notice that the bogus Fox story only says that 90% of the traced guns came from the US:
In other words, while they try to play a little math razzle-dazzle, the fact is the statistic stands accurate. The remaining firearms were untraced, (in fact, never submitted, according to the article) which means while Fox cites sources where they could’ve come from, they also could’ve come from the US. The key word is untraced.
This is a leap in logic not supported by any quote in the entire article. this, in other words, is bullsh¡t presumption. They’re also jumping to the conclusion that guns that can’t be or weren’t traced automatically means they didn’t come from the US. This is also a bullsh¡t presumption and also one not supported anywhere in the Fox article.
This article is misleading and disingenuous. Of course, it’s Fox.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:06 pmThe private equity boys want desperately to fall outside the regulatory framework. Yet, they’d love to be included in the Tim Geithner nonbank backstop.
http://peureport.blogspot.com/2009/04/carlyle-groups-twin-davids-on-peu.html
April 17th, 2009 at 4:11 pmDo people actually picture themselves going mano a mano with the U.S. government? Isn’t it more likely that the government would shut down the water supply, electricity, communications grids, and all traffic in and out of an area before pounding the rebels? Sure, we might be able to look like Iraq for a few years, but nobody would be overthrowing the government with guns.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pmTimesUK Online:
April 18, 2009
Israel stands ready to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites
The Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6115903.ece
April 17th, 2009 at 8:14 pmfrom the washington post
The reality is that most guns that turn up in Mexico are not from the United States, do not have U.S. markings and therefore are not sent across the border to U.S. officials. The 90 percent figure reflects the number Mexico sends to the United State for tracing that turn out to be from the United States – not a percentage of the total number of all weapons seized in Mexico. Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told Fox News that “the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market.” The vast number of seized weapons from other places is not counted.
April 18th, 2009 at 1:38 amThe Veterans Administration exposed over 10,000 patients to other patients’ blood and body fluids. The problem arose in cleaning endoscopic parts. The VA characterized the problems as:
“inadvertently neglecting to appropriately reprocess a specific auxiliary water tube.”
Horse hockey! It’s a quality nightmare. Over twenty five patients now have Hepatitis B, C, or AIDS.
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2009/04/quality-nightmare-is-more-than.html
April 18th, 2009 at 7:19 pm