REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

What the Man Who Brought His Assault Rifle to Obama Townhall Heard the Day Before

POSTED BY: HKCAVALIER
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 1, 2009 10:40
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 28185
PAGE 3 of 4

Saturday, August 29, 2009 8:44 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Coming in waaaay late, so this'll be long.

Thank you for bringing the subject back to the subject...but isn't it always the way? Any discussion involving guns it seems to me ALWAYS devolves into the pro-gun people spouting all their reasons and "logic" as to why universal gun ownership is a good thing, and go to great lengths to explain why any form of gun control threatens everything.

It's a mindset, and not one anyone will change. The fact that some people will take the argument to the point of physically SHOWING their pro-gun stance is what worries me, coupled with the drummed-up hatred and fear of the current government...which affects the religious right and pro-gun people more vehemently than anyone else. It SHOULD be a simple matter, that someone carrying a gun anywhere near a President shouldn't be allowed, especially given our country's history, but it always gets picked up by the pro-gun people and the religious people to be an argument of freedom, while the logic is tossed out the window right quickly.
Quote:
The two separate are a mystery--the two together are motive and opportunity.
. That says everything that needs saying, to me.

However, I can't resist addressing the whole gun thing, too:

Frem, I have no fear of a gun on a table, but a guy wearing ne in public to an event where there is absolutely no need for one, to make a stupid statement, does scare me...and makes me mad. It's just plain assinine.

In the first place, to compare a gun to anything else that could be used as a weapon is ridiculous--NO other weapon can off the number of people kids have been doing in schools like Columbine. To say one could always defend onesownself with one is equally invalid; how many people have had their own guns used against them? How many kids have died or been injured, or killed or injured others, by daddy's gun? The argument is absurd on its face, and I reject it.

If you want to compare us to prey animals, go right ahead; but I like to think we're just a BIT above them...and below them in that so many like to take a high-powered rifle or assault weapon to shoot animals.

Kwicko said it for me: It always blows my mind that the right is against abortion but for the death penalty. Sorry, but to me their argument holds absolutely NO water unless they adopt one of the kids abortion prohibits, and raise them WELL, not just feed and clothe them. Otherwise, it's bullshit. Religion creates zealots, zealots see only "one" way; their own. Has nothing to do with "freedom", only has to do with freedom to harm others' freedom.

I agree about Dumbya, too; that man did more to bring about THOUSANDS of deaths for his own agenda, than almost anyone in recent history. I also decry religions that teach violence, which all of them do in one form or another; it becomes an excuse for violence for those who just want to spout it and follow the dictates they find in it which supposedly "justify" their beliefs/actions. Sick.

Anthony, I agree with your sentament, but can you tell me exactly how you determine that "As long as you're not a verifiable danger to yourself or others, you get to keep your rights"? I, too, would abhor one of these fringers with a gun, but you can't know someone's gonna use it unless...well, how exactly? After the fact? I think anyone bringing a gun to something like that pretty much says everything that needs to be said about himself.
Quote:
I maintain that schitzophrenia is a meaningless diagnosis, let alone bipolar or ADHD.
It's your right to believe that, but being bipolar myself, if I weren't also a buddhist I'd wish you HAD one of those disorders and had to live with it. You'd change your tune right quickly if you did, and you're one of the kind of people which makes our quality of life hard to attain and maintain. Yes, over-diagnosis is a problem currently; mankind seems to go to extremes on everything. But part of me sure would like to see you deal with being schizophrenic and saying the same thing.
Quote:
Still, when folks say wackjob with a gun, everyone seems to go berserk at the "with a gun" part, and I am focused on the "wackjob" part, and this does get my ire up
Maybe because a wackjob or wingnut WITHOUT a gun isn't nearly the threat...to the President or anyone around him? I got no problem with a "wackjob", but I got a LOT of problem with a wackjob with a gun!
Quote:
But no crime was committed. The Secret Service, which you must agree is probably pretty serious about protecting the President, didn't consider the gun-toter enough of a threat to do anything about him (And you can bet they would if they thought it necessary).
Ahh, I like this one; it shows that America, under Obama, isn't like the somewhat totalitarian regime Dumbya ruled over. People with mere anti-Bush BUTTONS were arrested; this guy walks around freely.

Which doesn't make it right in my opinion. Expressing dissent is one thing, carrying something with which you might express that dissent physically and harm others is a whole different ballgame. I think the gun should have been removed and given back to him afterwards, at the very least.

And again I make the argument; allowing people to carry guns to a Presidential event (or that of any government figure, IMHO) means more will do so (as is already happening). How many Secret Service do we want to employ watching all these people? Two per person? Three? How much attention will be paid to the gun toters that might better be spent protecting our Commander in Chief? Just how good IS the Secret Service, and do we want to test that theory?

As to why the Secret Service didn't do anything, perhaps it has to do with the current administration having more respect for the law, maybe? If Dumbya could have people wearing buttons arrested, so could Obama...but of course Bush was a hero, Obama deserves death!
Quote:
Should they be jailed because they make you uncomfortable? Should their First Amendment rights be abridged because what they say is hateful and objectionable? Do you want that kind of precedent in place when administrations change and the new one finds what you say hateful and objectionable?
No, as far as I'm concerned, they should be disarmed until the President leaves then have their guns returned. Simple as that. I don't care what their religious leader says or what their opinions are: guns at a Presidential event are stupid and dangerous. Period.

Geezer,
Quote:
So if we're in trouble due to folk who want to kill the President (or politicians in general), we've been in trouble for quite some time.
First, I sincerely hope we have matured as a country beyond the time when people shot it out in the old West. If not, we're in deeper trouble than we think. Second, I have little problem with people wanting to kill a President--someone always HAS, whoever's in power. I have trouble with people who want to kill a President being allowed to walk around freely with the potential ability to DO SO.
Quote:
what you have is a group that wants violent overthrow of the government
Bingo.
And again, by this time the argument has become mostly pro-gun v. anti-gun, and away from the subject at hand.
Quote:
In some places, most folks decide that while the hate-spouters are objectionable, they have the same rights as the rest of us, and that our best response is to either ignore them or oppose them using the free-speech rights available to all.
That's what I believe, with the caveat that neither side is carrying weapons. Religiosity, philosophy, politics, etc., fire people up; I'm against giving those fired up something to FIRE. Simple as that.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 29, 2009 9:59 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Frem, I have no fear of a gun on a table, but a guy wearing ne in public to an event where there is absolutely no need for one, to make a stupid statement, does scare me...and makes me mad. It's just plain assinine.

Alas yes, I'd not entirely disagree with you there - but sadly people do a LOT of asinine things, and someone driving an SUV ten miles over the limit while jawing on a cellphone, and trying to read a GPS as they weave all over I-94 scares me way more than these dweebs, you know ?

Long as the weapon stayed slung or in the holster, the idea of the guy packin don't bother me so much as the way he was set about it, and the factions playing on his weaknesses or personal prejudice/issues in order to drive that behavior for reasons of their own.

I consider that far, FAR more dangerous than the guy himself, you understand ?
Quote:
In the first place, to compare a gun to anything else that could be used as a weapon is ridiculous--NO other weapon can off the number of people kids have been doing in schools like Columbine.

You'd be surprised what some folk might get up to, honestly, a bit of fertilizer and diesel, or simple common chemicals which in the right configuration can produce low grade nerve gas, or even an impromptu FAE with a propane tank and some duct tape - what surprises ME is how rare it is amongst a section of our population we're undeniably abusive to in a psychological fashion, they're not stupid, they've got motive, means and ability, but they choose NOT to do it - that speaks better of humanity in general than most folks idea of it, I think.
Quote:
To say one could always defend onesownself with one is equally invalid; how many people have had their own guns used against them? How many kids have died or been injured, or killed or injured others, by daddy's gun? The argument is absurd on its face, and I reject it.

Less than drown in five gallon buckets every year.
Thing is, the very folk who ramped this guy up, they're playin the same game with YOUR head too, by playing on that crack in your own reasoning.
That said, it's pure damnfool negilence to NOT secure your weapons around kids too young or irresponsible to use them safely, and any kid old enough to do a bit of plinking should have the FULL safety and operation course before they're allowed to operate so much as a BB gun.
Guns are a useful defensive tool, but the BEST defensive tool anyone could ever possess is right between their ears, I just wish more folk used it.
Quote:
If you want to compare us to prey animals, go right ahead; but I like to think we're just a BIT above them...and below them in that so many like to take a high-powered rifle or assault weapon to shoot animals.

The comparison isn't my opinion on it, it's made from the viewpoint of those folk who would prey on their fellow man, cause that is how they see other people, and the causes for this are known to me, but that's a topic for another thread.
Far as hunting goes, also a topic for another thread, cause I wouldn't shoot an animal myself unless I had to, and I got *issues* with anyone who doesn't respect the cycle by wasting the precious gift (trophy hunters, etc).

People are generally better folk than most give em credit for, the premise that we're just above beasts and need to be controlled "for our own good" is a myth sold to us by the folk offering to do that controlling... who have their own reasons for it that I doubt none of us would care for.

Also
Quote:
It's your right to believe that, but being bipolar myself, if I weren't also a buddhist I'd wish you HAD one of those disorders and had to live with it. You'd change your tune right quickly if you did, and you're one of the kind of people which makes our quality of life hard to attain and maintain. Yes, over-diagnosis is a problem currently; mankind seems to go to extremes on everything. But part of me sure would like to see you deal with being schizophrenic and saying the same thing.

You shouldn't take that as demeaning you or your issues, one of the biggest problems folk have with inflated and fallacious diagnosis is that it removes resources from folks who really DO need them, instead applying them as a social control regimen - spreading them thin and reducing the availability to folk who really COULD use the help.
Quote:
Maybe because a wackjob or wingnut WITHOUT a gun isn't nearly the threat...to the President or anyone around him? I got no problem with a "wackjob", but I got a LOT of problem with a wackjob with a gun!

Again, you might want to rethink that position, given what a couple wackjobs without any pulled on us at the twin towers.
Believe me, wackjobs can be a threat, and SMART wackjobs, fortunately rare, can be a damn dangerous one.

Although the wackjobs that REALLY scare me, are the political factions playing on this, and setting the whole thing up without a full understanding of the consequences - you got some that want to ban guns, some who want to stir the pot and use the threat of a gun ban, and you got some real rumdingers who want to use threat and violence as an act of petulance cause their cabal isn't holding the reins of power anymore, who would dance a little jig if one of these nutters *DID* do something, cause fear and kneejerk stupidity is what they ride into power - and didn't we just get done with that ?

An excellent point has been made as a wholesale solution to the problem, simply have the owner of the venue property make the decision on whether or not to allow open carry on the site - that ain't so hard, is it now ?

I might come across harsh, but I got my reasons, which I have tried to explain fully, and would rather deal with the totality of the issue, than a side issue folks wanna use for partisan reasons, cause that always goes nowhere.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 29, 2009 1:31 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
How many kids have died or been injured, or killed or injured others, by daddy's gun?

In 2006, 54 in the 0 to 14 age group were accidentally killed by firearms.
Play with this site for a while, and you'll see that accidental death by firearms is waaaaay down on the list.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

For example, 99 kids between 0 and 14 died in falls, 101 were poisoned, 756 drowned, 1088 were suffocated, and 2067 were killed by motor vehicles. all these deaths were classified accidental, not homicide.

Four times as many (219) committed suicide as died by accident. Only 62 by firearm, BTW.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 29, 2009 1:38 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:
At what point does a guy owning a rifle (and yes, it IS just a rifle - it's NOT an "assault weapon" despite what the media tells you. I actually heard Olbermann say the guy had a "machine gun".) become a would-be assassin?
Not necessarily at ANY point...but it's as clear a statement as many of the things that have been said and puton placards lately. It's not as OBVIOUS a statement, maybe, but given his background, it kinda says something.

And while he may not be an assassin, if his openly carrying a gun to a Presidential event, as it has, gives others the idea, I can't help but think somewhere in there is going to be a REAL fringer with assassination in mind. The more people who engage in such, the better the chances, and actually, eventually the definite.

Yes, I'm glad Obama is making efforts to be the opposite of Dumbya in such ways, but it also worries me. Precedent is a dangerous thing...and if/when their numbers get big enough and the authorities have to crack down, what's THAT gonna do?

I don't think there would be anything wrong with removing his gun and giving it back to him when Obama (or any other politician) has left. It has nothing to do with self-preservation, with all the police and secret service around, so what is it beyond a statement, and a negative one at that?

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 29, 2009 1:38 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I saw Anthony say earlier that he felt it should be up to the airlines whether or not to allow guns on flights. So would that be tantamount to saying that you'd be fine with town hall venues declaring themselves Gun Free Zones? After all, isn't it their choice whether to allow you to carry your guns to a Presidential appearance?


I feel like there may be a trip wire attached to that question ... but I'm going to answer anyway... and that would be "sounds great" but only in theory. In reality, as in now in this case, it would probably create more problems than it would solve.

Just imagine how Rush/Fox would spin it: "I told you he wanted our guns! We told you he was going to start gradually taking away our liberties! Are you going to wait for the next wave of Tyranny to wash over your civil rights and your children's rights? When are you going to stand up?!" I'm afraid it would just stir up the crazy pot.

I'm sorry the gun folk weren't more out front showing some cool, level outrage over this since it's like HK says and some of you here seem to acknowledge - one of these nuts gets a shot off anywhere near a rally and you may get your dreaded confiscation scenario.

Or....maybe that's the confrontation they want? Good way to start something big.

Elsewhere on the same subject... I'm not catholic, just stumbled on this exchange:

http://forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?f=62&p=742591&sid=c5977eeac233
2d707ae3e9e81b24f096

JIM R SAYS:
Carrying a gun, loaded or not, to a town hall meeting, as in the case mentioned, is the act of a delusional person.

It certainly isn't the act of a person who believes in democracy.

Immediately after the election of Barrack Obama, I saw a thread opened up in a Catholic Forum, of which I won't name, where down in Texas, a group was calling for people to stock up on ammo and firearms for an armed revolt. Unfortunately, Catholics in the forum were in favor of the idea.

One thing neoconservatives don't like about democracy, is when they lose.

MARYANN RESPONDS:

Jim,

How is that WE who carry and are entitled to are delusional and don't believe in a democracy? Where does that come from?
You are absolutely right on the stocking up on ammo and firearms. Why not? It IS our right!
Catholics that don't believe in firearm laws, granted to us in the constitution, must not believe in our fore fathers idea of freedom for this country and its citizens.
I find your post insulting and extremely judgemental............and ending it in the fact that when we LOSE we get what? Angry?
This is a bunch of hogwash!
Okay......so YOU, personally, don't believe in the 2nd amendment. But, why become so crass and judgemental? Does this make YOU a better Catholic? If you actually believe that, you need to do some deep soul searching.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 29, 2009 1:58 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Frem, I have no fear of a gun on a table, but a guy wearing ne in public to an event where there is absolutely no need for one, to make a stupid statement, does scare me...and makes me mad. It's just plain assinine.


Why? In this case, the gun wearer and his sociopath preacher are clearly crazy bad news. But say you see someone just walking down the street with a gun strapped on, which is a common occurrence where I live. They're not doing anything with it, they're just wearing it. For that reason, I don't react unless I see them draw. Yet you could also argue that there's absolutely no reason for him to be walking down the street openly packing. Where do you draw the line?

Although...

Quote:
No, as far as I'm concerned, they should be disarmed until the President leaves then have their guns returned. Simple as that. I don't care what their religious leader says or what their opinions are: guns at a Presidential event are stupid and dangerous. Period.


I could maybe agree with that... If I didn't think the Secret Service pulling the guy aside and taking his guns might also involve putting him in a nice shiny black car, depending on the administration.

I don't really want, in 3 to 7 years, another administration having the precedence to make that their policy for people at a political rally they attend, whether their weapons are guns or a verbal attack.

For the record, when I said before that I'm not into guns? I mean it. I really don't see the allure. I don't have one, don't have one in my house, do not really plan to get one, have no idea how to operate one.

Quote:
It's your right to believe that, but being bipolar myself, if I weren't also a buddhist I'd wish you HAD one of those disorders and had to live with it. You'd change your tune right quickly if you did, and you're one of the kind of people which makes our quality of life hard to attain and maintain. Yes, over-diagnosis is a problem currently; mankind seems to go to extremes on everything. But part of me sure would like to see you deal with being schizophrenic and saying the same thing.


I don't know about Frem, but DT had some absolutely TERRIBLE experiences being institutionalized for psychological disorders that he DIDN'T HAVE but was diagnosed with, comparable to River Tam's fictional experiences.

I don't believe the tripe about parents asking for their kids to be diagnosed with autism or any of that other stuff, but I do believe that schools and children psychiatrists can become little more than pill pushers, which is where a lot of the argument against some of these diagnoses for things like schizophrenia come from.

You know that I was diagnosed with schizophrenia when I was ten? They put me on some medication that screwed me up for a while, badly. I'm just lucky my mom was alarmed by the side-effects and started researching the medication they had me on. She yanked me out of that bitch's office, pronto.

And I say I was lucky, because with many of my friends I saw the bad side of NOT getting away soon enough. The medication school psychiatrists put them on made them worse, much worse, then the dose would increase, vicious cycle that damaged them. One of them ended up suicidal because of it. She's better now, because she's not on all that crap, but now she'll always have to take something because she's STILL suicidal. Which is the whole DAMN POINT, to give kids disorders they don't have, so the pharmaceutical industry can make a buck.

That's off topic, but when you posted that, I had to respond. I do believe that real mental illness does exist. But I'll never know how much is mine and how much was the shit they had me on for those years. And I did NOT have schizophrenia.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 29, 2009 2:03 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
...but it's as clear a statement as many of the things that have been said and put on placards lately.


Placards calling for the death of the president aren't a new thing. Try google image for "kill Bush", e.g.


He even got his own tee-shirt.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 29, 2009 2:04 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Frem:

I agree absofrigginlootely that
Quote:
the factions playing on his weaknesses or personal prejudice/issues in order to drive that behavior for reasons of their own
. But I maintain that it is the pawns (soldiers) who do the killing, not the generals.
Quote:
You'd be surprised what some folk might get up to
I'm afraid I have to reject that--I was talking about at-hand weapons only; comparing carrying a gun with brandishing a knife with making a bomb doesn't work. At least it's not what I was debating.
Quote:
That said, it's pure damnfool negilence to NOT secure your weapons around kids too young or irresponsible to use them safely, and any kid old enough to do a bit of plinking should have the FULL safety and operation course before they're allowed to operate so much as a BB gun.
Oh, my, that shouldn't even need disagreement with, but how many people exactly do you trust, if open-carry were legal and anyone could have a gun, to be responsible enough to do that? How many parents aren't even responsible enough to RAISE their kids, much less care/worry about them playing with guns?

Yes, the best defensive tool is between our ears, but that presupposes you have faith that people USE it, which I don't in many cases. The fact remains that many people are impulsive, easily angered, bigoted, and many other things that to me would make them carrying around a gun pretty damned dangerous.

All these facts that have been spouted; they can't be considered valid because open carry is not the law everywhere, and not everyone has a gun. We'd have to have that kind of society for figures to be accurate, and we don't. I'm not for banning gun ownership, at all, but I'm also not for encouraging it. I don't have full faith in my fellow man, and I think for good reason.

I don't think we're just above beasts and need to be controlled, but neither do I think that most folk are better than what we give them credit for. I think most folks aren't radical nutbags, but there are enough of them out there to be stirred up into mob mentality that I don't want them armed around my President.
Quote:
You shouldn't take that as demeaning you or your issues
Oh, I didn't, I took it as ignorance and stigma, which still abound. I don't think as such it reduces resources or availability, I think a much more serious problem is the tendency to label anything "outside the norm" as being one form or another of mental illness, especially in young people, and OVERmedication. I'm just sad at the people I see denying the existence of real mental illness.


Okay, correction: I have a problem with a wack job with ANY weapon which can cause a lot of deaths, I just consider guns one of them. I'm not looking at public ownership of guns in relationship to public ownership of bombs, etc., I'm talking about it in relation to other, hand-held weapons. It can do a lot more damage, period. Like I said, I'm not in favor of outlawing guns, not at all; there are enough running around that self-preservation would be defeated if they were outlawed. I'm against people like this one being allowed to bring them to events like that, that's all.
Quote:
Although the wackjobs that REALLY scare me, are the political factions playing on this, and setting the whole thing up without a full understanding of the consequences - you got some that want to ban guns, some who want to stir the pot and use the threat of a gun ban, and you got some real rumdingers who want to use threat and violence as an act of petulance cause their cabal isn't holding the reins of power anymore, who would dance a little jig if one of these nutters *DID* do something, cause fear and kneejerk stupidity is what they ride into power - and didn't we just get done with that ?
Very well put, and on that we agree 100%. I don't live in a black-and-white world, nor do I ever want to; it's the powers behind the pawns that anger and scare me, too, and I don't believe for one minute they are "without a full understanding of the consequences"--I think they understand about half the consequences and want to use it to their advantage.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly; a good solution would be for the owner of the property to say "no guns here". I think it's just as reasonable to have the Secret Service confiscate any guns for the duration of the event, then return them to their owners, as well. I'm not sure what's involved with the owner of the venue property saying "no guns", but I know the Secret Service has the legal right to confiscate them in that situation--certainly if Dumbya could get away with all the things HE did to stifle protest, that would be tiny, in comparison, and not rob anyone of their freedom, as far as I'm concerned. That's just my opinion, tho'.


________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 29, 2009 2:11 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Citing someone walking down the street with a gun strapped on doesn't address my statement; I have no problem with THAT either. I said at a Presidential event.

As to the Secret Service and the shiny black car, we don't need any precedent. Dumbya set it much higher in arresting people for t-shirts and buttons. ANY regime can behave tyrannically, past, present or future.

As to overdiagnosis, incorrect diagnosis and overmedication, you get no argument there--I did mention that elsewhere. Trust me, NOBODY decries that more than the mental-illness community, we KNOW precisely how awful the side effects of our meds are and 99.9% of us do NOT want children put on them unless it's absolutely, positively necessary, and even THAT proven to the enth degree. It's negating mental illness 100% that bothers me.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 29, 2009 2:15 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
As to the Secret Service and the shiny black car, we don't need any precedent. Dumbya set it much higher in arresting people for t-shirts and buttons. ANY regime can behave tyrannically, past, present or future.


But shouldn't we be encouraging non-violent measures and resistance to take back what various regimes have begun to claim?

(Emphasis on non-violent, and again, I don't agree with this guy, assuming his preacher was his motive... Who probably was, I'll grant)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 29, 2009 2:17 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Geezer; of course I know that stuff has always been around. What worries me is that it's more frequent, more openly done, and those who would do it are being riled up by organizations with an agenda who don't give a damn about the consequences. Bringing a gun to a Presidential venue is different from placards, it's all part of a whole and to me this is a step further down the line, and not a good one.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 29, 2009 2:19 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Uh, I think confiscating his gun until the event was over IS a more non-violent reaction--you seem to be saying that confiscating the gun HAS to be followed by the shiny black car; I'm saying that step alone shouldn't be a problem.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 29, 2009 2:25 PM

BYTEMITE


No no. I wasn't referring to the shiny black car here.

If one administration said NO free speech anywhere in the vicinity of the president... Shouldn't that unwritten, illegal law be deliberately flouted? And in a more tolerant administration, shouldn't it be exercised more, to prevent a regression back to the "no free speech" era?

If we do not even try to constantly reclaim what is taken away, how can things ever get anything but worse?

>_> On that note, we need to get the PATRIOT ACT repealed, get rid of the wiretapping, and have our intelligence agencies have some accountability.

I honestly can't think of a solution to the problem of person having a gun, and the possibility of taking away gun being followed by shiny black car. Neither one is acceptable. If the guy is a danger, the gun MUST be taken away, but on the other hand, we can not allow shiny black car rides or any precedence for them.

Because I can't decide what should be done, that's the reason you'll notice that I haven't been talking much in this thread. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 29, 2009 3:44 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Well see, that's the beauty of being a stringpuller myself, I get to know the moves in advance.

You got your kings, kingmakers, and pawns, sure...

But there's more pieces on the field than that, and I tend to favor the rook, since I tend to be pretty cursed direct about what my intentions are.

You might recall me admitting *I* wind these idiots up and set them to MY purposes as well, yes ?

That requires understanding them, and that leads in to knowing the moves three steps ahead, you see ?

The hard-right is very big on gun rights and the second amendment, this is obvious as all get out, see...
HOWEVER
They're also very big on the sanctity of private property, are they not ?

So if the owner of that private property says "no packing", the conflicting directives will cause the pawns to have a mental meltdown about it, heh heh heh.

Then the kingmakers will claim constitutional rights trump property rights.

Then I hit them sideways with the fact that the constitution isn't a list of things YOU can do, it's a list of things the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can do, and anything not on it belongs to the States, and the People, respectively - that all but forgotten 10th amendment, don't you know.

And then the discourse gets bogged down while they lawyer it and debate about what the definition of "is" is, and suchlike, trying to weasel word it while under a withering barrage leveled at em by someone who knows the entirety of constitutional foundation enough to quote from both the Federalist and Antifederalist papers at length, as well as related editorials and speeches of the time.

And then they'll change the subject.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 29, 2009 4:59 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer; of course I know that stuff has always been around. What worries me is that it's more frequent, more openly done, and those who would do it are being riled up by organizations with an agenda who don't give a damn about the consequences.


Is it more frequent? Maybe it just gets reported more. Consider that the last president to actually get shot (Reagan shot by Hinkley) and the last to have a potenital assassin thwarted at the last minute (Ford attacked by Fromme) were Republican. Three of the four presidents assassinated were Republican. Does that make Democrats more threatening to the life of the president?

Murder requires the classic trio (Motive, Means, and Opportunity) plus the usually unstated forth - Will. You have no idea whether the armed folk at the town hall meetings Pres. Obama held had the will to kill, instead of just being posers with signs and guns. It's not your job to know this. It is the job of the Secret Service, and they considered this armed guy not enough of a threat to do anything about. Maybe you should let the experts in the field do their jobs.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 29, 2009 5:27 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

I feel like there may be a trip wire attached to that question ... but I'm going to answer anyway... and that would be "sounds great" but only in theory. In reality, as in now in this case, it would probably create more problems than it would solve.

Just imagine how Rush/Fox would spin it: "I told you he wanted our guns! We told you he was going to start gradually taking away our liberties! Are you going to wait for the next wave of Tyranny to wash over your civil rights and your children's rights? When are you going to stand up?!" I'm afraid it would just stir up the crazy pot.

I'm sorry the gun folk weren't more out front showing some cool, level outrage over this since it's like HK says and some of you here seem to acknowledge - one of these nuts gets a shot off anywhere near a rally and you may get your dreaded confiscation scenario.


Piz -

No trip wire, I promise. I'm just trying to lay out some scenarios to think about.

Truth is, I don't fit in any particular group on this issue. I'm a "gun guy", I really am - but I'm also a lefty-looney-liberal. Yeah, I'm a bit conflicted about that, too. :)

And if you'll look back to the day in question, I was one of the gun guys saying that this first guy doing this shit was absolutely NOT helping. Actually, I think there's an awful lot of people in this world who really, desperately need someone to be their common sense, to go with them everywhere, and do that loud stage whisper in their ear: "PSSSSTTTT - You're NOT helping!!"

What I want to ask these idiots is this: At what point did you think that taking your guns to a political rally was going to make you look like the brightest guy in the room? How is it possibly helping your cause to wear a gun to a political rally while actively trying to shout down debate about pertinent issues?


Mike


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:47 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
[
Murder requires the classic trio (Motive, Means, and Opportunity) plus the usually unstated forth - Will. You have no idea whether the armed folk at the town hall meetings Pres. Obama held had the will to kill, instead of just being posers with signs and guns. It's not your job to know this. It is the job of the Secret Service, and they considered this armed guy not enough of a threat to do anything about. Maybe you should let the experts in the field do their jobs.



You've pointed out that the experts haven't exactly been batting a thousand. For any team. Maybe they need some help? My only concern is how any changes - no guns within x range - would be spun.

As for stopping motive... maybe the liberal media needs to get Biden back in the news.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:49 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

As for stopping motive... maybe the liberal media needs to get Biden back in the news.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:39 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Byte: Gotcha. A toughie, no matter how you cut it.
Quote:
If one administration said NO free speech anywhere in the vicinity of the president... Shouldn't that unwritten, illegal law be deliberately flouted? And in a more tolerant administration, shouldn't it be exercised more, to prevent a regression back to the "no free speech" era?
Like I said, a toughie. I obviously believe in using my free-speech rights to protest and demonstrate, but I pick my issues, and something like that would be waaaay down the line. Each administration is going to deal with this stuff their own way, I don't think protesting one administration will change how another behaves.

I think exercising a right such as this during a more moderate administration, also, won't change how future ones behave. So in a perfect world: Yes. In reality: I'd rather pick my issues because I don't think it would help to set any precedents or have any effect on future Presidents anyway.
Quote:
On that note, we need to get the PATRIOT ACT repealed, get rid of the wiretapping, and have our intelligence agencies have some accountability.
I wholeheartedly, angrily, righteously AGREE 100%, dammit, and I'm having more and more trouble holding onto my patience waiting for Obama to do something or allow something to BE done. I keep telling myself it's only been eight months, there's so much to deal with, those ones are gonna be BIGGIES (like prosecuting torture)...but it gets harder all the time. I'm not ready to give up on him...yet...tho'. It's early in the game still.

Hmmm, Frem...interesting concept. Personally, I don't think the pawns would have a meltdown, since facts aren't likely to get in their way and I think they'd consider gun rights AS property rights and have no problem choosing between the two. As to the kingmakers, I dunno...depends on too many things, particularly how much money and power they've got

Geezer: Ahhh, here's one I can sink my teeth into.
Quote:
It's not your job to know this. It is the job of the Secret Service, and they considered this armed guy not enough of a threat to do anything about. Maybe you should let the experts in the field do their jobs.
To begin with, yes I DO think it's my "job" to know. I'm a citizen, I want to know as many facts as I can glean through my own observation, research, etc. If I don't, I'm taking somebody else's word for it, and that's how a lot of the town-hall folk end up being the pawns they are.

As to letting the "experts" do their "jobs": 1) the last administration showed us just how good the "experts" are at that; 2) it's my right as a citizen to have an opinion; 3) it's my right as a member of this community to voice my opinion. So THERE!
Quote:
What I want to ask these idiots is this: At what point did you think that taking your guns to a political rally was going to make you look like the brightest guy in the room? How is it possibly helping your cause to wear a gun to a political rally while actively trying to shout down debate about pertinent issues?
I'm guessing they don't think that deeply about it, it's more visceral than that. "I wanna show the world how I feel, and that I can damned well carry my gun ANYWHERE I want to" is about it, would be my guess. Along with "I hate Obama", no doubt. Given there's been no recognition of the fact that they HAVE these rights and can do this under Obama, and would probably have disappered in that shiny black car under Dumbya, doesn't seem to have crossed their brains...

From what I hear, the whole thing was staged in Arizona, with the interviewer and other guy making a "show" of the interview, both wearing guns, to put their point across...get attention? I don't think "smartest guy in the room" or "helping your cause" comes into it--except that they might well think they are BOTH by doing what they did. Foresight isn't always the most active part of the brain in things like this, from what I've seeen. Just my supposition.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:13 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
To begin with, yes I DO think it's my "job" to know.


So you've taken training similar to that the Secret Service uses, have access to the same information they have, have the same command and control setup in place, and the accumulated knowledge of folks who have been doing their job for years. I'm guessing no. You have a few seconds of video, and what the media want you to hear. I don't believe you have enough of the facts to form a valid conclusion. If you have more than what I noted above, please let me know.

Remember, I'm talking here solely about you second-guessing the Secret Service's decision to leave Mr. Gun-toter alone. You may have your opinion, but security of the president is not your "Job".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:21 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


You're not responding to what I said, you're responding to something I did NOT say. Try again:

To begin with, yes I DO think it's my "job" to know. I'm a citizen, I want to know as many facts as I can glean through my own observation, research, etc. If I don't, I'm taking somebody else's word for it, and that's how a lot of the town-hall folk end up being the pawns they are.

As to letting the "experts" do their "jobs": 1) the last administration showed us just how good the "experts" are at that; 2) it's my right as a citizen to have an opinion; 3) it's my right as a member of this community to voice my opinion.

I'm saying it's my job as a citizen to know as much as I can, from various sources, about everything that impacts my country. It's also my job to question, not accept anything whole cloth, told me by my government. To do otherwise would be to abdicate my responsibilities as an American.

That doesn't mean I have to know the exact inner workings of the Secret Service to question them. And I maintain I question the expertise of anyone hired for any job in the government during the Bush Administration. The ineptitude, inappropriateness and cronyism of many, many of those people has become terribly evident. I never said I had specific knowledge of Secret Service training, I said I had an OPINION.

Maybe I'm off in left field, but your responses sounded a bit dictatorial and defensive. Kinda like Cheney and friends saying "if you know what I know, but you don't, so take my word for it". I never bought that from them, and I don't buy it WHOLE CLOTH from anyone else.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:37 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Act of genius.

How much would it cost to buy that much free advertising? Millions or tens of millions of dollars? Or more?

Millions of sheeple have been educated about their legal right to carry firearms in public, without a license.

In Tennessee, no license is required to carry an unloaded rifle or shotgun in public areas. 2nd Amendment has not been enforced in TN.

www.opencarry.org

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:40 AM

BYTEMITE


An argument about someone's credibility and relevant expertise in regards to whether they have the knowledge and capability of forming an opinion on the subject at hand is just another way to ignore their argument.

It's also an ad hominem logical fallacy, one I know all too well because I often criticize the medical industry. Most common response to my concerns: "Are you a doctor? Then shut up." Or on Colin Powell, Iraq, and WMD, back in 2003: "Are you a military expert? Then shut up."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:17 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You're not responding to what I said, you're responding to something I did NOT say.


I could say the same thing. Here's what I said.

"You have no idea whether the armed folk at the town hall meetings Pres. Obama held had the will to kill, instead of just being posers with signs and guns. It's not your job to know this."

Now, you're entirely entitled to have your opinion about the gun-toters at meetings, but do you really have enough data to develop an informed opinion about this particular circumstance - to "know" what the situation really was - or are you just going on limited and possibly suspect information, informed by your pre-conceptions?

Quote:
To begin with, yes I DO think it's my "job" to know. I'm a citizen, I want to know as many facts as I can glean through my own observation, research, etc.


It's a fine idea to do your own research and form your own opinions, but you have to be as sceptical of the folk who you agree with as you are of the ones you don't. For example, consider your "How many kiddies are accidentally killed with daddy's gun?" question. I suspect you thought it was a lot, based on something you'd heard. I found the answer in a couple of minutes (50-something, I seem to recall.). You could have found this info too, but you took somebody else's word for it because you agree with their goals.

BTW, I've known Secret Service agents, and they're about as apolitical as anyone can be. If their job is to protect the President, they'll do it, no matter which administration hired them.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:29 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
An argument about someone's credibility and relevant expertise in regards to whether they have the knowledge and capability of forming an opinion on the subject at hand is just another way to ignore their argument.

It's also an ad hominem logical fallacy, one I know all too well because I often criticize the medical industry. Most common response to my concerns: "Are you a doctor? Then shut up." Or on Colin Powell, Iraq, and WMD, back in 2003: "Are you a military expert? Then shut up."


This depends. If, for example, you criticize the medical industry in general or large chunks of medical policy, your medical expertise - or lack thereof - shouldn't be an issue. However, if you criticize the way a particular surgical team is doing a heart transplant, then you should probably have some knowledge of the specific thing they're doing.

In the same way, criticizing government policy is something most anyone can do without specific training or degrees. When criticizing one particular tactical situation dealt with by the Secret Service, a more thorough knowledge of executive protection would seem to be called for.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 30, 2009 12:00 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
To begin with, yes I DO think it's my "job" to know. I'm a citizen, I want to know as many facts as I can glean through my own observation, research, etc. If I don't, I'm taking somebody else's word for it, and that's how a lot of the town-hall folk end up being the pawns they are.

As to letting the "experts" do their "jobs": 1) the last administration showed us just how good the "experts" are at that; 2) it's my right as a citizen to have an opinion; 3) it's my right as a member of this community to voice my opinion.

I'm saying it's my job as a citizen to know as much as I can, from various sources, about everything that impacts my country. It's also my job to question, not accept anything whole cloth, told me by my government. To do otherwise would be to abdicate my responsibilities as an American.

You know, just hearing someone say that warms my little black heart.

Glad to see someone else actually "gets it", whether or not I may or may not agree with them, at least for once we're workin from the same concept!

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 31, 2009 5:36 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Actually, I had no idea how many kids were killed by accidental gun access...nor do I care. One is too many.

I'm not going around on this a third time; you seem to want to ignore what I'm saying. I said I have the right to an opinion, as a concerned citizen, without knowing every detail of every situation. Let's just let it lay at that. Your insistence that I should either know everything or shut up is psychologically interesting, but has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Or, if you prefer, I'll let Byte say it for me:
Quote:
An argument about someone's credibility and relevant expertise in regards to whether they have the knowledge and capability of forming an opinion on the subject at hand is just another way to ignore their argument.
Your response to her is equally telling. When, exactly, did I 'criticize' the Secret Service? I offered several possibilities and my opinion...you took it instantly as criticism, apparently. Says a lot.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 31, 2009 6:35 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Right back atcha Frem. I don't care what someone's "side" or opinion is, I just wish more people would bother to at least TRY, rather than swallowing the propaganda hook, line and sinker without even trying to use their brains.

Unfortunately, far too many people are only interested in things they can SEE directly affecting their daily lives, and afraid of anything they're told MIGHT affect them, without caring to look further. Good on YOU, kiddo!

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 31, 2009 9:22 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Actually, I had no idea how many kids were killed by accidental gun access...nor do I care. One is too many.


But you thought it was more, right? Else you wouldn't have used it in your argument. All I'm saying is to check your facts before you use them, and that folks you agree with may not be giving you the straight facts.

Quote:
I said I have the right to an opinion, as a concerned citizen, without knowing every detail of every situation.


You do have a right to your opinion, same as anyone. Byte has some strong opinions on medical practice in the U.S. Would you let her perform open-heart surgery on you?

BTW, in my opinion you shouldn't wear green.

Quote:
When, exactly, did I 'criticize' the Secret Service?


"No, as far as I'm concerned, they should be disarmed until the President leaves then have their guns returned. Simple as that. I don't care what their religious leader says or what their opinions are: guns at a Presidential event are stupid and dangerous. Period."

Unstated but pretty obvious throughout your post is "Allowing people to carry guns at a Presidential event is stupid and dangerous. Period.". Since the Secret Service controls security at Presidential events, you apparently consider them stupid and dangerous.

Could be I'm a bit touchy about this, since I've had a little inside look at the world Secret Service folk work in.

But, yeah, we done wore this topic down.

Pax?


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 31, 2009 11:03 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"You bring your agenda laced garbage here and zombie strawman horde ..."

WTF are you posting about ? Didn't you link an online comic making just that point ? You know - the guy who goes through some portal from 'our' dystopia to an alternate universe where everyone is healthy, rich, and the sky is blue ? All because everyone carries a gun ? Do you need me to go back and dig it up ?

That WAS your post. Remember ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 31, 2009 11:09 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"... to slam Wulf ..."

Wulfie has a dangerous belief - that he is completely right, that he the only one who is right, that everyone else is totally wrong, and that THAT gives him the right to use a gun to further his righteousness. He argued that point in another thread. If you insist and I have the time I will dig it up.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 31, 2009 11:24 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Rue, you have an argument with me? Take it up with me.

And me alone.

Otherwise, if you wish to argue the ideals I have brought, then do so in that vein.

Argue against what I have said. Say that you don't believe in the right to free speech and the ability to protect oneself.

Don't try and tie me to these ideals, and then use that to disgrace them. I am just a man. The ideals that I champion are not so low as to be challenged or brought down by myself or the likes of you.

And neither, can they be brought low, by the sniveling cowardice of your babbling.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 31, 2009 11:38 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I never considered it "not pax", I just found your stance rather defensive and dictatorial.

No, I said I didn't know how many kids; no, I didn't think it was more (I wouldn't LIKE to imagine many people leave their guns around for kids to get their hands on); and I repeat: one is too many.

What in heaven's name would Byte's opinion on the medical profession have to do with letting her do open-heart surgery??? Did I anywhere even intimate that I would or wouldn't let the Secret Service guard me? Totally irrelevant...duh...

My stating it was stupid and dangerous to let people carry guns at a politial event has NOTHING to do with saying the Secret Service is "stupid and dangerous". That's a patentl absurd comparison to make! I think they're FALLIBLE, as all human beings are--however fantastic their training may be--and they couldn't protect JFK or RFK or MLK or...get the point?

"a bit touchy"? That's kinda the understatement of the day, considering all the leaps you made from my initial remarks, don'tcha think? I expressed an opinion--as I might add so did many here--and you jumped on only one part of it.

Enuff, I agree. This isn't a debate I ever intended to engage in, and it's gone way beyond the original topic, not to mention getting circular because you don't seem to be hearing what I'm saying...

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 31, 2009 11:38 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Ooops, hit the button twice. Mea culpa.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 31, 2009 11:59 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer

As I stated earlier, your first link was go se. And here are the reasons why, at length:


Quoted from the 'report'

Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons.

... victims who resist with guns are still substantially less likely to be injured than those who resist in other ways, and even slightly less likely to be hurt than those who do not resist at all.

With regard to studies of rape, although samples typically include too few cases of self-defense with a gun for separate analysis, McDermott, Quinsey and Upfold, Lizotte, and Kleck and Sayles all found that victims who resisted with some kind of weapon were less likely to have the rape attempt completed against them.



So, the authors of your first reference didn't read what they themselves wrote about defense in general. They insist that vigorous defense with SOME kind of weapon is superior to the alternatives, but they also say that those who did not resist at all were only slightly worse off than those who resisted with guns.

Do they make a case that guns are the best defense ? No, they do not. Do they make a case that armed defense is better than none at all ? No, they do not.

In context of these issues, their survey is irrelevant. You can get all the numbers you want, but if those numbers don't address the question, they're useless. And in fact, the survey does NOT address the main question, which is this: overall, is it safer to be armed than not ?

As for their survey - it is hampered by several factors:
1) They contacted people by phone. Phone surveys are known to have biases because, oddly enough, not all people have phones, not all people who have phones are listed, and, most importantly, most people who have phones are at work during the day. They made no attempt to correct for these KNOWN biases in their results.
2) They base their results on self-reports. Self-reports are notoriously inaccurate for reasons both of perception and memory, the same reason why eyewitness accounts are the least reliable type of evidence. Surveys that are based on self-reports indicate that on average we eat better, exercise more, weight less, drink and smoke less, and a host of other items that are contradicted by KNOWN FACTS. And self-reports get hazy when you go back more than a month or two which leads to the next and obvious problem ...
3) Their survey covered 5 years. FIVE YEARS. Now, after 5 years the fish gets bigger until it's Moby Dick. The victim's role gets more heroic. What people wanted to have done turns into what they did. This is consistent with memory studies in which real victims have had their memories compared against known facts. (BTW - there is a questioning technique which helps nail down critical details for later recall, but you have to get to the person within optimally minutes or at most hours, due to post-facto memory editing which happens in us all.)

All in all, your first link is useless, as I said it was. And which you have failed to address.

As for your second link, it deconstructs the 'report' you are so fond of. Here is one of their findings: "Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use in 1994 against a person. Given the sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6 percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million adults. Almost half of these respondents reported multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23 million. This surprising figure is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52! (Maybe she went on the prowl looking for someone to make her day ?)

You know the old saying ? GIGO ?

Comparing other known facts to those early figures, the authors lean toward a roughly 1/1800 number for people who have used a gun defensively. That is a very small proportion of people indeed, certainly not the rampant vigilantism you want to bamboozle us into thinking exists. And yet again, you have no case. As usual.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 31, 2009 5:19 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
Niki
But part of me sure would like to see you deal with being schizophrenic and saying the same thing.


Strike one, but life goes on. If you ever need help let me know. I'm very well versed in the field. I will ignore the totally insensitive comment because no one on the net can know, short of actually reading someone else has to say, what they may have had in their past.

I've posted my own history in depth a fair number of times including recently, but that just points to the rules of the board, which are Mad Max rules:

1. Always know what you're talking about, never assume anything

2. Get background before posting, check facts, even the ones you know

3. Never fight a war, winnable or not.

The last was one I learned through mental illness itself and the study of it, and I think is useful to everyone, mentally ill or not:

Every war is a losing war. Any mental battle takes your time, hence it wins. The same holds true for simple opinionated arguments: You always lose, because they take time.

On a slightly related note, just because I see this happening

Discussions about unknowns as a form of cooperative research is worthwhile. Arguments about who is write or wrong are not.

This is why I bother to comment on John's rants about jews: I know that he is searching for the truth about forces underlying global politics, and the number of times he insults my ancestors doing so is not particularly relevant. If he were making an argument for or against judaism, it would be pointless on either side. I'm not a jew, but I wouldn't get involved if I were.

I'm only posting this because to the newbies it may be less obvious, but one of the valuable life lessons this board has taught me is to only debate within a rational framework. Hence my posts like "internal 2a debate" I'm not pro-gun, but the debate anti vs pro 2a is a totally pointless debate. If I am to debate 2a, it has to be internal to one side or the other, and my external position on 2a is not important, even if I have one which i'm not sure that I do, but still I find the debate interesting.

BTW, for people on that thread, it did get derailed somewhat into a sort of gunlover's wet dream gun-stroking exchange, which isn't exactly 2a, but more sort of thread would be entitled "gun porn"

If anyone has any suggestions on ways to minimalize that sort of devolution, please share.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 31, 2009 8:42 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Wulfie has a dangerous belief

No less dangerous than yours.
Quote:
that he is completely right, that he the only one who is right, that everyone else is totally wrong, and that THAT gives him the right to use a gun to further his righteousness.

And you believe much the same, and that it gives you the right to use the guns of the State to further that righteousness.

Let's not bullshit each other, deep in the core of our hearts, every one of us is the hero of our own lives and believes we're right, THAT is human nature.

Given the disparity between an individual, and the State, of firepower and ability to apply it, not to mention official sanction and perceived legitimacy, which one would constitute a greater threat to me - especially since even as badly as he does, he understands the concept of defending rights even used in methods or by people they do not agree with, and you never have, regardless of what you might otherwise say because we've been down this road enough times that your actions have spoken for you.

Despite his issues, my disagreements with them and the foundations of many of the mans beliefs, Wulfie displays one thing that has bought him the cred with me to get treated decently despite his boneheadedness, and that is the ability and willingness, however grudgingly, however halfheartedly, to question and examine his own core beliefs - something which in your accusations, you blind yourself to your own personal lack in that regard, every bit as sure of your own righteousness as the very people you're flaming, and the fact that you got called out, and quite correctly for it, on such a major issue has left a dent you just can't get over, can you ?

What would you have me do then, shoot him ?
Have the State lock him up for "re-education", oh yeah, that's a great precedent there, innit ?

No, I don't support his bigotry and misperceptions, and try to educate his ignorance without attacking him as a person because he's shown to be at least barely accepting of that, that he can learn, is at least willing to TRY, no matter that he stumbles, and on occasion looks like a damn bloody fool for it, garnering little but mockery and scorn for it - something that takes a lot more courage than to sit within the armor of self-righteousness and preach down at others instead of speaking WITH them.

That's my way, always has been, Try Reason First - until the point where folk prove they've no intent whatever to BE reasonable.

And yes, I have repeatedly offered the link to L. Neil Smiths "The Probabilty Broach" - with the complete acknowledgement that it's a political tract, something the very first page admits in no uncertain terms in the first two paragraphs and doesn't try to put itself off as anything BUT a political tract and work of fiction/opinion - as opposed to folks who pull "facts" from sources with proven agendas and little credibility.

Besides which, it happens to be an entertaining story, which is the primary point of all such adventurist/escapist fantasy regardless of genre.

And as a coda: I do have an agenda, which I am completely up front about having and pushing, rather than pushing the "religion" of State-worship from behind a thin facade of purported neutrality, thus one of us is being extremely dishonest about our intentions here.

And yanno...

I don't think it's me.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 4:05 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

As I stated earlier, your first link was go se. And here are the reasons why, at length:

Quoted from the 'report'

Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons.


Jeez, Rue, this is in the Introduction and is discussing general self-defense, prior to getting to the survey or the stats.

Quote:
... victims who resist with guns are still substantially less likely to be injured than those who resist in other ways, and even slightly less likely to be hurt than those who do not resist at all.


You should have included the part of the sentence before your elipsis, which changes its meaning quite a bit. "National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data indicate that even in the very disadvantageous situation where the robber has a gun...". Clever editing.

Quote:
With regard to studies of rape, although samples typically include too few cases of self-defense with a gun for separate analysis, McDermott, Quinsey and Upfold, Lizotte, and Kleck and Sayles all found that victims who resisted with some kind of weapon were less likely to have the rape attempt completed against them.

Sigh. Still in the Introduction, and talking about self-defense in general.


Quote:
So, the authors of your first reference didn't read what they themselves wrote about defense in general. They insist that vigorous defense with SOME kind of weapon is superior to the alternatives, but they also say that those who did not resist at all were only slightly worse off than those who resisted with guns.

Oh, Come on! This is all in the Introduction. They're summarizing existing information on the subject. Standard operational procedure when writing a paper.

Quote:
Do they make a case that guns are the best defense ? No, they do not.
But they do make the case that guns are effectively used in self-defense quite a number of times.
Quote:
Do they make a case that armed defense is better than none at all ? No, they do not.
But the statement you quoted above ... "Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons." ... indicates that it is.

Quote:
As for your second link, it deconstructs the 'report' you are so fond of.


And I commented on that. Who do you trust more, two liberal professors at Northwestern with no particlar agenda, or the Clinton Administration in the midst of their anti-gun campaign?

I see as usual you tend to ignore the substance of any cite and cherry-pick a few lines to pull out of context, then deny the rest is relevent.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 5:58 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


My, my, my...devolution at its best. Interesting to watch.

Just one simple statement: Any and all numbers, etc., stated are based on the original fact that not all people own guns. The only relevant facts to prove anything would be if EVERYONE owned guns.

Rue: Good deconstruction of the argument based on the cited reference.

Dream: Why "strike one"? Please clarify. And I'm bipolar, not schiz, for which I'm VERY grateful.

Wars are not debates; and debates can be educational, enjoyable, and a mental challenge. I reject your argument. Unwinnable debates are those between two people where one is trying to make a point reasonably and the other is outlandish and uncivil. THOSE are a waste of time, to me, and something I try to avoid. But I have nothing against taking a snipe at someone who makes a nasty statement against others' struggles or suffering. I said I wouldn't actually wish him suffering, but I'm free to resent his denial of that of others.

I reject your rules, as on the internet, as you said, we can't know one anothers' background. Nor can we, in my opinion, know ALL the facts on anything. We are mostly only able to be observers, and you can find anything to back up anything on the internet.

All debates come from each person's belief they are right and the other person wrong. If we all had nothing but cooperative discussions, not much would be posted. It's the internet.

Quote:
it did get derailed somewhat into a sort of gunlover's wet dream gun-stroking exchange, which isn't exactly 2a, but more sort of thread would be entitled "gun porn"
I concur...interesting to watch/read, tho', and interesting to debate, IMHO. I don't think you'll ever find a debate on guns that doesn't do so, however; it's a hot-button topic in which people seem to have a strong investment, ergo, the odds of it devolving into a "war" are high, like politics and religion.

I attempt to debate rationally until I see things that indicate the other person isn't being rational, or that they aren't hearing me, or that their own prejudice is so strong it's not possible to discuss it. What I've seen of PirateNews' posts, for example, are way too often offensive, highly dramatic statements about those he doesn't like, so discussing ANYTHING reasonably with him is a waste of time, so sometimes I snipe. Geezer went after me in this thread and hasn't seemed able to accurately hear what I'm saying, and his prejudice on one subject seems so strong that my mere giving of an opinion became a useless back-and-forth, so I gave up.

Frem, maybe I'm weird or something, but I don't see myself as the hero of my own life, nor believe I'm always right...I like learning from others and altering my beliefs when I learn something that is valid. I agree with some on some things, disagree with them on others, and am quite willing to give kuddos where I think a good point is made, whoever makes it. I honestly don't pay a lot of attention most of the time to who wrote what; most of the time I respond to the POST, not the personality.

Yes, I've found in my short time here that there are some who think like me and I enjoy their company. But I've also learned that there are those I agree with sometimes, but not always. And lastly, I've found some who are so over-the-top that even entering any kind of discussion with them is waste of time.

Just wanted to put my two cents' worth in.


________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 6:56 AM

FREMDFIRMA


No worries, Niki - in that case I'm even weirder cause I happen to be the Villain of my own life, one might say.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainProtagonist


-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 7:13 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...




________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 7:23 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"Despite his issues, my disagreements with them and the foundations of many of the mans beliefs, Wulfie displays one thing that has bought him the cred with me to get treated decently despite his boneheadedness, and that is the ability and willingness, however grudgingly, however halfheartedly, to question and examine his own core beliefs"

Well, again (and this pisses me off), I dont know whether to say "Thank you" or "Fuck you".

But as to my so-called core beliefs, they are hard earned, and hard won. And would probably surprise most.

Suffice it to say, "Cultures, groups, suck. Individuals, however, can be awesome".


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 9:05 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Frem

"And you believe much the same, and that it gives you the right to use the guns of the State to further that righteousness."

You are SO far from what I believe that it's a lie.

I have made the case - many times and in many ways - that SOCIETIES have the right, the power and the need to determine how they will comform themselves. And while I think I DO know some things better than most, I have never said that it would be a righteous thing for ME to require everyone follow MY beliefs - or even for ANYone. That is properly for society as a whole. And since we DO live in a democracy - nominal as it may be - I have advocated the power of the vote as the means to effect change. Unlike, I might add, Wulfie, who thinks democracy is go se, because it comes up with things HE disagrees with.

And BTW - ALL societies enforce their exacting requirements on their members, whether it is taking the beating hearts out of sacrifical victims or making people pay taxes. If you have a problem with that, take it up elsewhere.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 9:08 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"And since we DO live in a democracy..."

No... we live in a republic....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 9:12 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


You DO know what 'nominal' means - right ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 9:22 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Who do you trust more ..."

Spoken like a true authoritarian.

I don't trust a 'who', I trust a 'what' - in this case statistical evaluation. Looking for outliers - like 52 times a year gun use, for internal consistency (how does one set of numbers compare with another) and for reasonability when compared to known statistics. You know, reason coupled with accuracy. Oh wait - you wouldn't know about those.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 9:24 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Rue,

You are losing. Have the decency to do it with some dignity, at least.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 9:25 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Because you don't have answer to this "You DO know what 'nominal' means - right?"

Oh puuuhleeeze -

***************************************************************

WHATever ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 9:31 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Rue,

Or don't acquiesce with dignity. Its your call.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 9:32 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Wulfie

How about you stop being a lying fool ? It's your call.

***************************************************************

And while you're at it - see if you can come up with a definition of 'nominal'. It will be the key to you actually understanding what I posted. (I note that so far you have twice sidestepped such a simple task.)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, November 24, 2024 09:50 - 7496 posts
The Islamic Way Of War
Sun, November 24, 2024 08:51 - 41 posts
Favourite Novels Of All Time?
Sun, November 24, 2024 08:40 - 44 posts
Russia to quit International Space Station
Sun, November 24, 2024 08:05 - 10 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 08:03 - 946 posts
Russia should never interfere in any other nation's internal politics, meanwhile the USA and IMF is helping kill Venezuela
Sun, November 24, 2024 07:48 - 103 posts
Japanese Culture, S.Korea movies are now outselling American entertainment products
Sun, November 24, 2024 07:24 - 51 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Sun, November 24, 2024 06:04 - 180 posts
Giant UFOs caught on videotape
Sun, November 24, 2024 05:43 - 8 posts
California on the road to Venezuela
Sun, November 24, 2024 05:41 - 26 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Sun, November 24, 2024 05:37 - 71 posts
MAGA movement
Sun, November 24, 2024 05:04 - 14 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL