Ann Romney has a gleam in her eye when she thinks of “you people”.
Did Ann Romney say “we’ve released all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation”? (It sounds to me like “we’ve released yunh people need to know…” when I listen to the video.)
Did Barack Obama say “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” or was he referring to bridges? (It sounds pretty clear to me that he’s talking about infrastructure.)
Did Michele Bachmann say there is “potential Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the United States Government” including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s assistant Huma Abedin? (Yes, and it’s in writing.)
Did Abedin’s now-infamous househusband make a sort of comeback? (Yes, revealing that he is or maybe is not going to run for New York City Mayor.)
Are we going to have to endure this kind of silliness between now and November 6? (Almost certainly “yes”.)
Feel free to weigh in on what Ann Romney said between “released” and “people”, and what Barack Obama said about business owners, or anything else that strikes your fancy. It’s your thread.
Don’t see an article on a particular topic, but want to talk about it somewhere? This is Open Mic. Talk about whatever you want, but stay respectful.
We create a new Open Mic every week to give a clean slate, but feel free to add to this topic at any time.
surely banning all automatic weapons would be a great step?
da,
Automatic weapons are illegal for sale in the US except under VERY stringent conditions.
A federal Form 4 must be filled out to make an application for an automatic weapon. You need to be 21 years of age to start this process. Then you need to be approved by your police chief and pass an FBI background check and pay for this work and wait for many months. Then those weapons can cost in the tens of thousands of dollars.
A number of states will not allow ownership regardless.
Max,
Nobody said doing nothing was better than doing something. But if the choice is between a lone gunman firing rounds and two or three half-trained people firing into the mêlée, I truly doubt the result will be an improvement.
There are cases where an armed individual may foil an evildoer. They’re rarer than you think, which is why you trumpet the rare case when it happens. Most of the time, and in most situations, an armed individual is a danger to all those around them, including themselves.
This is amply born out by the statistics on deaths by gun.
“
A number of states will not allow ownership regardless.“
Why not just ban them completely? Seriously, what is the argument for automatic weapons in civilian hands?
da,
you understand that use of automatic weapons in crimes in the US is so rare as to approach zero? I can’t name a single instance off the top of my head.
sc,
I agree that a “two or three half-trained people firing into the mêlée” is not the answer. But YOU are making THAT assumption. That a person would just jump up and begin firing their gun indiscriminately. That is NOT the choice as I presented, or would be personally involved.. Fact is that most responsible gun owners “know their target” and will not pull the trigger until target acquisition. I also want EVERY CCL applicant to receive training and demonstrate proficiency.
Can you give us examples of where one or two or three half-trained people that held a CCL fired in a situation that made the results worse?
Max,
Just look at the statistics from the Army on friendly fire…
But you are correct. In the vast majority of cases, the armed individual will not use the weapon they have.
Which really means that your initial question as to whether it would have been better, in this case, if someone in the theater — besides the gunman, that is — had been packing, was fatuous. This was a circumstance that would have been far better with NO guns, not with more.
GROG,
For what it’s worth, I think Rubio is a particularly articulate (albeit misguided) politician. And I think he could be a serious force in 2016, particularly if Obama is reëlected this year. In many ways, the Marco Rubio of 2012 strikes me as the Republican version of the Barack Obama of 2004.
I have been listening to the 911 calls today, and I am deeply impressed by the obvious bravery and professionalism of the Aurora Police and Fire Departments. I am saddened by the loss of life but cheered by the Thin Blue Line between our lives and mayhem.
rgbact,
So let’s say Daniels was his VP choice, and the election were held next Tuesday. You think all seven of those states would go Romney?
Another thought: as someone who spent time doing Disaster Preparedness for hospitals, I am also impressed by the response of hospital personnel and their state of readiness.
shortchain,
I had the same thought.
sc,
“This was a circumstance that would have been far better with NO guns, not with more.”
A fatuous hypothetical in contradiction to what actually happened. It would have been a far better circumstance had Hitler not been appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933.
Ted Kaczynski never used a gun.
The amount of planning and expense this dog put into his crime was incredible. If guns were not available, he could have very easily made an ammonium nitrate/fuel oil bomb in a couple of #10 cans, scored, topped off with bb’s and with 1/2″ paneling nails glued and taped to them. They would only weigh a couple pounds, easily concealed and transported and fused. And could have killed dozens in a crowded location. A determined killer is almost unstoppable. This guy could possibly have been, once he started.
I am NOT saying there is any perfect answer, only possible ones.
Max — I understand that a scale of guns in terms of potential harm might go something like (please correct me if I’m wrong)
Machine Guns
Automatic Rifles
Snipers Rifles
Machine Pistols
Semi Automatic Assault Rifles
Pump-Action Shotguns
Semi-Automatic Pistols
.22 Calibre Rifles
Shotguns
Revolvers
In the UK, the only two of those that are still legal in any quantity is the Shotgun and .22 calibre rifle, for use by farmers and gamekeepers respectively.
I am aware that both of those weapons can kill. But if this guy had walked in with a .22 calibre rifle and a pair of revolvers, rather than all the weaponry he had, it is likely that deaths would have been lower.
I wanted to see where you would draw the line about weapons in civilian use. You wouldn’t even draw the line at fully automatic weapons.
Max — when you say things like “A fatuous hypothetical in contradiction to what actually happened.”, when it is in fact a hypothetical that in no-way contradicts what happened, you come across as biased on this issue. Just saying.
da,
“You wouldn’t even draw the line at fully automatic weapons.”
Huh?? Where do you get that I say that? Yes, I would. Along with the two other specific thing I mentioned. I did not mention automatic weapons as they are ALREADY illegal, with those exceptions I also mentioned.
So, on your list, draw a line between “machine pistols” and semi-automatics”.
And your list is fairly accurate. The “sniper rifle” is a fallacy. A top quality bolt action .30–06 (7.62) hunting rifle with an appropriate scope makes an excellent sniper weapon. But sniping is an art form. Not just the gun/scope combination, but also the cartridge(s), specifically made, weighed and assembled for the purpose, a spotter and the training on getting oneself into the location for the shot, all are a part of the equation of a successful sniper. And patience. Lots and lots of patience. Not a job for moi!
In 1969, on this date, we did something that we don’t do anymore because we’re more interested in devising complicated investment instruments to steal everybody else’s money.
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Weekend_Ahead#ixzz21DeWH6yl
Thanks for the reminder Pierce.
da,
“Biased” on which issue?
I am NOT biased towards people arming themselves to the teeth and going out and killing innocent people at random.
I AM biased towards the US Constitution and it’s deference to and recognition the natural right of American citizens to bear arms, properly regulated.
As regards what can be done ie prevention. Nothing ie Oklahoma City, Columbine, Gabby Gifford, etc. as the gun lobby owns politicians.
A random nutcase sometimes slips through the cracks, even in friendly, “sane/rational” Norway.
In high school theology class we had a sarcastic idiom ~ Many are starving/dying in Biafra/Bangladesh … so let’s form a discussion group!
If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Which is an extension of/compares to We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …
Or vice-versa.
>
Did I mention Americans love their guns?
Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground. Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down!
>
We now return you to gun/rifle/semi-automatic clip/drum capacity and whatnot …
I find it amusing and a bit mystifying that our conservative friends are quite silent on the matter of gun ownership and self-protection.
My further participation shall recommence on the morrow.
Max, discretion is the better part of valor er better to be quiet and let folk think you’re a fool, than to open your mouth …
ie at the conservative blog I frequent the Aurora massacre discussion ranged from conservative disingenuous Obama sarcasm to childish conservative name calling towards liberals who tried to offer solutions.
Be thankful for small blessings!
btw, the con blog I frequent is 90⁄10 conservative which is half the fun!
Max,
The infamous LA Shootout gunmen used US-bought AKs illegally modified to fire on automatic. They also had full-body ballistic armor suits, which were quite resistant to long-range gunfire from the pistols of the police officers that first showed up on scene. Seeing as how they didn’t manage to actually kill anyone, I’m somewhat dubious as to whether their having automatic rifles actually made them any more deadly.
It would seem to me that regardless of his armor an armed theatergoer in the first few rows could have stopped the shooter — wearing a gas mask, his situational awareness would have been poor and as most of the people there apparently hit the floor immediately there was probably a clear line of fire. Emptying a pistol’s magazine into him at close range would likely disable him through blunt trauma even if you missed his unarmored arms and face.
shortchain,
The military actually teaches quite elaborate weapon-control drills to prevent soldiers from shooting each other by accident while fighting at close range. I’ll not go into what precisely they are.
It strikes me that the only way to really clamp down on these kind of attacks beyond waiting for society to move on (spree murders being quite rare in the past) is to either ban private possession of anything that could potentially be a deadly weapon or accept a great deal of routine and intrusive government surveillance of our private lives to sift out potential lone-wolf terrorists. Retrospectively, looking at this guy’s purchase records over the last three months (full of guns and explosive components) would have made it obvious that he was up to something bad.
George W. Bush Skipping Republican Convention
“Former President George W. Bush is skipping the Republican National Convention next month in Tampa, Fla., where presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney will officially become the party’s standard-bearer.
“President Bush was grateful for the invitation,” his spokesman, Freddy Ford, said Friday in an email. He added that the 43rd president “is confident that Mitt Romney will be a great president. But he’s still enjoying his time off the political stage and respectfully declined the invitation to go to Tampa.”
Bush’s presence at the convention could undercut Romney’s argument that he knows better than President Barack Obama when it comes to improving the wobbly economy. A CBS News/New York Times poll this month found more voters say Bush deserves the bulk of the blame for the nation’s economic downturn than think Obama bears a lot of the responsibility. Almost two-thirds of voters think Romney’s economic policies would mirror Bush’s at least somewhat.”
>
Who didnt see this one coming down 7th Ave. lol
I don’t suppose he likes Obama better?
But wait. Those 911 people are gubmint workers. We need to fire them (or at least destroy their pensions), and return more tax money to the people. Why do you hate America?
I’ve been away most of the day, mostly working.
rgbact’s EC predictions are amusing. And no, a VP choice — especially the ones he suggests — will not win a single state for Romney. Most of them (particularly the likes of Rubio or Ryan) will cause most undecided Americans, particularly Indies, to scream in horror — especially once the Obama campaign is done presenting some actual, you, know, facts about their positions.
No. I think Romney loses about 3% — 5% in Wisconsin for this absurdly offensive pick. Ryan is popular in his district the way Bachmann is popular in her district in Minnesota. The rest of the state is far closer to sane. Ryan is an embarrassment to the whole concept of governance. I can only pray in my most fevered dreams that Romney picks a transparent troglodyte sociopath like Ryan. Please, if there are gods, please.
Morning all. Since da was up rather late last night (his time) , perhaps he’ll be a bit late joining us. To compensate, I’ve got The Open on the telly going in the background.
shiloh, same observation here.
A few of my FB friends and I were discussing the same thing, AW, once we knew how he was accoutered. Two of us have .40 S&W’s and we agreed those rounds would not penetrate. We also agreed with your observation, that each hit would be like a hammer blow. (Let someone hit your torso a good pop with a hammer before you sneer: “So what.”) 10–15 of those would divert his attention from his original intent. Setting up for a rush.
“
The military actually teaches quite elaborate weapon-control drills to prevent soldiers from shooting each other by accident while fighting at close range. I’ll not go into what precisely they are.“
For those who read/saw Starship Troopers, it is NOT what happened to Rico! (The first time, anyway.)
AW,
I did not intend to denigrate the military in my comment. I’m sure they do the best they can, and do it reasonably well — but the sad fact is that humans are not well suited to react with unerring precision when decanted suddenly into chaotic violence, and their weapons tend to go off in directions that, in a calmer moment, they would not have.
“Friendly fire” is still a significant cause of casualties in firefights. How significant we do not presently know, because the military doesn’t make them readily available. We’ll probably find out in about 20 years, if history is any guide, but I’ll predict up front that the percentage will be well over 25.
After all, we’re not talking here about a squad who trained together, are in the proper order, and know where all their fellows are (let alone all the bystanders).
Max,
By accounts, the perpetrator in Colorado had access to bomb-making material, and actually made bombs. Yet his choice of weapons were guns. A bomb is an uncertain weapon. Take the fuse for example. Too short, and you blow yourself up. Too long, and people escape.
You need a substantial amount of testing to make a really reliable bomb. As the undie bomber discovered.
And then there’s the psychological aspect. There’s a psychological reason why the kind of person who commits these acts really wants to dress up as a movie badman and stride into a mass of people, mowing them down. I suspect that it just wouldn’t be as compelling to use explosives.
As you say, a person whose only purpose is to kill will likely find a way. There is no perfect solution. Somehow, though, I sincerely doubt that adding more guns to the situation will improve it. (That’s been tried for a long time, and I don’t see the improvement.) You have recently pointed to other countries in discussing health care, yet you seem unwilling to point to other countries in assessing the benefits of tighter gun control. I wonder why that is?
Michael,
For what it’s worth, I think Rubio is a particularly articulate (albeit misguided) politician. And I think he could be a serious force in 2016, particularly if Obama is reëlected this year. In many ways, the Marco Rubio of 2012 strikes me as the Republican version of the Barack Obama of 2004.
I think the Republican party has the best crop of potential presdidential candidates that I can ever remember. Paul Ryan and Rubio are rising stars. They’re young, smart, and energetic. Both would make outstanding Presidents. Same with Christie, Daniels, and Allen West. I think Kasich, Walker, and Nicki Halley are 3 of the best Governors in the country. It’s a good time to be a Republican.
Compare that crop to Republican candidates of the past like Fred Thompson, Huckabee, Ron Paul, Newt, Romney, etc. There’s no comparison.
GROG,
Allen West? Really? Could you elucidate the attraction there? All I see from him are reports of statements that would make Michele Bachmann blush with embarrassment (and that’s saying something!)
“
yet you seem unwilling to point to other countries in assessing the benefits of tighter gun control. I wonder why that is?“
Actually, sc, I HAVE! If you review my comments with dawolf, you would see. (1) A Constitutional recognition and protection of an pre-existing natural right of Americans. (2) Cultural and historical differences.
You realize that, until about the time of the American Revolution, divine right of kings held forth in many European countries. Weapons, in the hands of commoners, were strictly controlled. The sovereign OWNED ALL THE LAND and the game thereon. Commoners could be, and were, EXECUTED for hunting, defined as poaching, the kings game! Our Founders made sure to avoid any repetition of such an eventuality (not just the hunting part).
Max,
I’m thinking of countries a bit more comparable to the USA and a bit more recent than two hundred years ago. Australia. Canada. New Zealand.
sc,
Not trying to be obstinate here, but do any of those countries have a Constitutional reference recognizing the right of gun ownership?
One cannot compare apples and kiwi fruit.
Perhaps you would wish to make YOUR argument AGAINST the Constitution and why it may need to be changed? Because I will continue to return to that same foundation. I caution you, ANY argument you can make about removing a natural right, with the changing of a few words, can also be used in efforts to restrict the right to vote. Think about it.
I am NOT saying that there are not consequences to a right, and corresponding responsibility. England has a law forbidding publishing information of criminal proceedings. That law would be forbidden in the US. There are all sorts of consequences to having a Constitutional freedom of the press.
Max,
You are still stuck in the 18th century, with your talk about “natural right”. Government is the embodiment of politics, and politics is the art of the possible. There is nothing sacred in the particular wording of the Constitution, as the Roberts court so recently discovered in its re-interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Besides, we’re not going to get anywhere if you interpret my observation that the situation would not have been helped by adding more guns, but would have been made better by removing them as forbidding the possession of firearms in toto. Perhaps there’s a middle ground between letting any yahoo purchase several pistals, a semi-automatic and a drum magazine, and thousands of rounds of ammunition without so much as a question … and totally forbidding possession of firearms?
If there is such a middle ground, we’ll not find it by pretending there isn’t one.
sc,
I caution you NOT to make ad hominem statements as you well know that I can give as good as I can take.
You have offered ZERO argument against my, AND the Constitution’s, “18th century” positions. Again, I call on you MAKE that argument in a convincing manner and save your opinions about me for your private musings. Both Heller and McDonald did NOT require a “reinterpretation” of the Constitution, but were affirmations of long held beliefs going back to before the Revolution.
You also need to clear your thoughts before making assertions about my position. “you interpret my observation that the situation would not have been helped by adding more guns, but would have been made better by removing them as forbidding the possession of firearms in toto“As I have NEVER held that, and have repeatedly opined that reasonable restrictions may apply, including (should you care to recall) limit quantity over time purchasing, background checks for ALL sales, including private sales between individuals. I would implement that by requiring the buyer to go to a licensed dealer to do the paperwork and by having the seller return a form disclosing the sale. Pretty much as we do in Texas and California when selling a car.
My friend, I am not pretending anything, but it seems that you are doing so when you accuse me falsely.
So, the burden is on you to make YOUR argument as it is YOU who wishes to change the status quo. Such is the traditional manner of desiring legal changes. Something which you have yet to do.
Max is correct that SCOTUS has ruled the Second Amendment says there can be few restrictions on gun ownership enacted by law.
All we need to do is enact an amendment that declares the Second to be voided. Then Congress may pass whatever laws are appropriate to restrict gun violence. Whether one approves of gun ownership or not, it would certainly be possible to continue allowing legitimate and reasonable ownership and usage of firearms. What is standing in the way of that — and in the way of even having a rational conversation on the topic — is an archaic and obsolete bit of eighteenth-century regulation.
Max — the biased comment was in reference to your saying that no guns at all and the same thing still would have happened. Clearly, with no guns at all, it would have been much harder for the attack to happen, and it would have happened completely differently.
Why should semi-automatic assault weapons be allowed? They didn’t even exist at the time of the constitution. I think (from a UK perspective, so I really don’t know this subject), allowing the “right to bear arms” to mean “the right to bear arms which are broadly similar to those at the signing of the constitution” would make sense. I think that would mean single shot rifles, shotguns and handguns basically.
and my point regarding automatic weapons — even if you need the signature of the police etc, what is the logic behind allowing ANY fully automatic weapons into the hands of civilians? At all?
grog’s laughable post aside …
Whereas I will agree because of conservative intense hatred of Obama, con billionaires are willing to give whatever $$$ it takes to defeat him in Nov. But their deep hatred will ultimately consume them and they most likely will implode.
So $$$ and all consuming hatred = a good time to be Rep. Congrats grog!
>
hmm, when Obama wins re-election which grog has stated is a high probability, will grog still think it’s a good time to be Republican ?!? Rhetorical.
btw grog, a couple more liberal to moderate Supreme Court justices.
Indeed, a good time to be Rep in the comin’ years lol.
>
Also grog there’s demographics ie between 2008 and 2012, the nationwide older white vote has decrease by 3% and the younger ethnic/minority vote has increased by 3%. And of course this trend will continue going forward. hmm, Obama’s campaign theme!
This is why cons/Reps have been expeditiously passing needless new voter requirement laws meant to disenfranchise older/minority etc. voters who usually vote Dem. As suppressing the vote is their only hope in 2012 and going forward.
ie a racist solution in search of a political problem!
This is your new reality grog!
Happy trails going forward …
Max,
The statement that the SC merely affirmed “long held beliefs” is a real doozy. Yeah, it overturned decades of settled law, but it agreed with the NRA’s long held beliefs…
Look, you want to broaden the argument beyond all reason, but what you actually said that started all this was that you thought some people at the theater who were carrying might have reduced the number of casualties. I have shown that this was a ridiculous idea. I take your deflection of the argument into general blathering about gun control to be a tacit acceptance of my argument.
As for the general argument, I agree that we need reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and I will leave it at that — because the NRA will see to it that no such restrictions will ever make it through, so arguing about it is senseless.
GROG,
Ryan would be a far worse President than you think, and not merely because I disagree with him on policy. He’s a policy wonk, and policy wonks have a hard time heading up the executive branch. That was Wilson’s biggest problem, and also Carter’s.
Christie would also make a terrible President. He has a brashness that can play in Jersey, but not many other places. Americans like someone who tells it like it is, until they are told something they don’t like. Either Christie hasn’t figured that out yet, or he didn’t run because he has.
Allen West is pretty much the Florida equivalent to Bachmann. I can’t see why you think he’d be so great. He trades on anger.
I’m afraid you might be having trouble remembering how good Thompson, Huckabee, and Newt looked when they were at their prime.
#138
da, excepting for licenced collectors perhaps, you’ll get no argument from me.
MW
But p555 says Christie has charisma lol.
ok, ok, many people also think Donald Trump has charisma!
>
Repeating the obvious which Ed Rollins stated quite eloquently lol ~ I wish the Republican party was less old, white and fat!
#137
Umm, yes, on that. I refer you to 07/07/05. How many guns were used to kill 52 and injure 700?
Neither did smokeless powder, revolvers, automobiles, airplanes, the ability to break free from Earth’s gravity or radio/TV exist in 1787. Does that mean we cannot use those things? A non sequitur.
“
Max is correct that SCOTUS has ruled the Second Amendment says there can be few restrictions on gun ownership enacted by law.“
That’s NOT exactly what the SCOTUS said. In Heller, the decision was that in federal jurisdiction, laws forbidding lawful gun ownership, or essentially doing same through requiring trigger locks, etc., IN THE HOME, were unconstitutional. While in McDonald, the decision said that the same applied in state and local jurisdictions.
The SCOTUS has repeatedly allowed for reasonable laws restricting certain aspects of gun ownership, including the ban on fully automatic weapons, licensing requirements, etc.! (See Heller at 54.)
Yes, Max, as I said, SCOTUS interpreted the Second as disallowing most restrictions on firearms. There are a few that are still allowed. We’re agreeing with each other on that.
If you interpret “most” and “few” differently from how I do, that’s cool. I can think of enormous numbers of restrictions that the SCOTUS ruling would disallow — far more than are allowed — so it’s easy for me to justify use of those words.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So, okay… let’s go with that. What are the essential characteristics of a “well-regulated” militia? Well.. it shows up when required to. It accepts discipline without question, follows orders and submits to regular training. If it didn’t, this militia could never maintain the security of a free state.
So let’s regulate this militia to make sure it can fulfill its duties. Let’s require that everybody who owns a firearm has to make sure that firearm is registered with and acceptable to the commanders of the militia. (Who would they be, exactly?) And then let’s require all these militia members to submit themselves for rigorous regular training in the maintenance, use and safety of their weapons, plus military drill and exercises. Say… one full day a month (that was the standard for militia members back when the constitution was written) and if they miss, they have to surrender their firearm, pay a fine and get kicked out of the militia.
Because when the Constitution refers to a “well-regulated militia,” it surely can’t mean 200 million untrained, unregistered people running around the country with lethal weapons in their pockets, waistbands and handbags. In fact that is exactly the OPPOSITE of a well-regulated militia.
It’s hard for me to believe anyone is as far off the rails as Bachmann. Her latest ravings are mind boggling. She needs to be kept in a room with mattresses on the walls.
She’s gone beyond crazy talk into true McCarthy territory. The woman is a menace.
This is the problem with the absurd overblown rhetoric we hear every day. When true threats appear, pointing them out sounds like merely one more round of paranoid hyperbole. Perhaps that’s why they do it.
What America does have going for it in this case is that Bachmann has no real power or authority. Of course, McCarthy didn’t when he got started, either, and Bachmann is (or at least, has been) good at raising money.
Do remember — Bachmann is the loon who founded the House Tea Party Caucus. If I identified myself with the Tea Party, I’d be doing everything in my power to disavow Bachmann right now.
In fact, Bachmann is raising quite a lot of money off this latest atrocity. There are people who love her hateful schtick so much that they’ll actually dig deep and sacrifice to keep it going.
Horrible to contemplate… but sadly true.
You are quite right, filistro. That’s why I say the woman is a true menace. She is very good at getting the crazy folk riled up. With the Republican leadership even afraid to take on the Tea Party, her ugly and hateful rhetoric can wind up causing some real damage to our democracy, the same way McCarthy did.
I am heartened to see John McCain and John Boehner both condemning Bachmann’s latest moves. I hope it’s not too little, too late. If these guys have again found their spine, and if she keeps up her xenophobic jingoism, it could end her career. With any luck, she’ll take the whole Tea Party with her. If they don’t distance themselves from her bigotry, they could suffer whatever fate she does.
But that’s a long way ahead of ourselves. At present, she’s still convinced her hate will play well, and it is far too early to see if she’s right or wrong.
Max, 07⁄07 killed 52 people. That’s about 18,000 a year. It was a one off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
About 12,600 deaths in the US per year from gunshots (I’m leaving out suicides).
UK, 138 (I don’t know if that includes suicides or not), which would pro-rate to maybe 700 in the US, or about 5% of the level.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom
Legal guns cause more gun deaths. Pretty simple really.
So let’s say Daniels was his VP choice, and the election were held next
Tuesday. You think all seven of those states would go Romney?
Its 8…and yes. Thats just based on my own quicky model that has 2 key elements 1) It ignores PPP polling 2) It assumes Romney gets the majority of undecideds. My current model actually has NV closer than PA, but I assume Daniels (or Ryan or Portman or Pawlenty or) would help more in PA
Obviously, these are razor thin margins and make major assumptions.….which just indicates that things are very close and anyone resting on a presumed 2 point lead this far out is crazy.
rgb… we are suddenly seeing quite major shifts at Gallup’s daily tracker and Intrade.
Gallup has given Obama a 4-point advantage in the head-to-head for the past 2 days running… the best in months…and Intrade within the past two days has suddenly widened his lead from 10 points to 20.
The only recent event to account for Romney’s suudden erosion, IMO, is the problem of those tax returns. Both political observers and the general public have abruptly come to the realization that Romney is in real bind over this (and a pretty grim, hopeless one, too) and his electoral hopes are fading quickly as result.
What can he do to fix this? Nothing that I can see. This is truly a situation where he’s damned if does, and damned if he doesn’t.
You’d think Romney himself, and especially the Republican party, would have seen this coming before they gave their nomination to the guy. It’s hardly some issue coming out of left field, after all.
fili,
” … the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.
OK, nothing unclear about that. No equivocation. There is an existing Right belonging to the People, which shall not be infringed. Easy.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state …“
OK, nothing unclear about that either.
No, let’s see how that has been put into practical use historically: The passage of the Militia Acts during the 2nd Congress. (And later amended by additional Acts) Those Acts provided for the ESTABLISHMENT of state militias. NOT presuming that such preexisted! And HOW was that militia constituted? By conscription. Conscription of whom? Of white, male citizens ALREADY EXERCISING their 2nd Amendment right. In fact, the 2nd Act provided that citizens THEMSELVES possess, at a minimum: those with muskets: certain other equipment, powder and ammunition; and for those owning rifles: certain other equipment requirements. All for when they may be called into service, whether for training or for actual combat. There were certain exemptions.
It is evident from the language of the Militia Acts that Americans would be in possession of arms. “provide himself” is what it says. It is also true that pistols were not a part of the required equipment, but no mention is made forbidding the carrying or use of pistols. The Founders and the Congress KNEW pistols existed. In fact, several had used pistols in duels!
The evidence thus is that they accepted citizens would “keep and bear arms” of various types. Nothing precluded female citizens from doing same, and women, especially on the frontiers, were adept at firearms, because the men could be away hunting or otherwise, and they may well need to defend their home and children. But they were not conscripted into the militia.
Subsequent amendments to the Militia Acts (1862, 1903) reorganized the system, but nothing in those Acts barred citizens from “the right to keep and bear arms”, as it was recognized that that right is natural.
# 151
Again I ask: How many guns were used on 07⁄07? You said I was biased and I give you a case in your home country. No bias intended.
“it was one-off”
Tell that to the 52, I’m sure they, and their families, will be consoled by the uniqueness. Again, my point was a determined killer will find a way!
“Legal guns cause more gun deaths. Pretty simple really.”
Yes. And I have never argued differently. Illegal guns will kill people as well.
And alcohol related deaths exceed gun deaths in the US by about 2–1. Alcohol consumption is not a right recognized by the US Constitution. Banning alcohol would reduce the number of deaths by more than an outright ban on guns, so why don’t we do that?
Oh yes. I remember now.
This is the problem with the absurd overblown rhetoric we hear every day.
Yes, we know how you daily fight against overblown rhetoric and for reasoned discourse. Now please tell me more about Paul Ryan and him being a troglodyte sociopath.
Gallup has given Obama a 4-point advantage in the head-to-head for the past 2 days running… the best in months
More like best in about 2 weeks.…and it was a tie just 2 days ago. Ah, cherry picking polls is fun.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
Max… quite so. I would be perfectly content if all owners of firearms were required to register such ownership with the state, along with their stated and signed willingness to serve in defense of that “free state” if called upon.
After all, the “well-regulated militia” is mentioned before the “right to bear arms.” In fact, the REASON given for the “right to bear arms” is not for personal safety, sport or hunting. It is to maintain “a well-regulated militia.”
Now, you can wish, hope or assume it is also meant to refer to sport, hunting, or personal safety. But because the Constitution is an immutable rather than living document, I guess you’re stuck with what it actually says.
Fili — last time you spent weeks blathering about the “death of the Republican party as we know it” the elephants proceeded to gain 63 House seats and 5 Senate seats in the strongest off-year election win since 1948. So spare us your breathless prognostications, please?
The campaigner in chief has outspent Romney by a 2–1 ratio for a month (not even counting all the taxpayer dollars he has spent campaigning in the last 8 months) and the best he has to show for it is a 4 point lead among RV?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-spent-twice-as-much-as-mitt-romney-in-june/2012/07/20/gJQAi0dvyW_story.html
Your “sudden surge” is statistical noise.
parksie… I seldom blather, and being a very fit and tireless hiker, I am almost never breathless
I do see a sudden sharp erosion in Romney’s numbers, and in the absence of any other discernible recent cause, I think it must relate to the problem of the tax returns… a problem which is only going to get worse.
Since this is open mic, I have a question for all who consider themselves as having foresight.
Even pretty staunch Republican supporters have to agree that the strategy of the GOP in the last 4 years has been to deny, so far as they were able, any successes to the Obama administration especially, and the Democrats in general.
They have even carried this to an extent which arguably has damaged the republic (as in last year’s debt ceiling fight). They’re doing that right now with their refusal to spend any time on any legislation that would actually enhance the job market.
Now, put on your prediction hats: what do you suppose will be the future political fights down the road if they are rewarded for cutting the throat of the republic for electoral advantage?
Max, 7⁄7 was a group, working together. Since then we’ve had such events as the shoe bomber, an attempt to ram raid an airport with a car full of explosives, and miscellaneous others.
If guns were freely allowed in this country I firmly believe we’d have had more deaths than 7⁄7.
You can’t make things 100% safe. You can make them safer. Getting rid of guns makes things safer — show me a UK version of Columbine or this recent attack, since we instituted tougher gun laws.
dawolf is absolutely right about one thing — since the design of modern semiautomatic weapons such as the Glock is specifically intended to multiply the harm a single wielder of them can do, guns increase the damage a lone gunman can do.
These weapons were unimagined in the days when our Constitution was designed. The idea that a lone individual could walk into a crowded hall and mow down fifty people would have been laughed at. After his pistols were fired, even if they had been double-barreled, and given the accuracy of pistols in those days, 1 person seriously wounded and another three missed or with flesh wounds, as he reached for his sword, he’d be rushed and captured.
The idea that the weapons of the days of the American Revolution were comparable to today’s readily available ones is asinine.
Perhaps the answer is as much societal and cultural, maybe more so, than the guns.
BTW, people, revolvers will fire as fast as you pull the trigger, just as a Glock will. So, even though not semi-automatic by definition, their action is. Just limited to 6–8 rounds versus 10–15 or more.
Semi-automatic weapons have been around for a century. The Colt 1911 held 9 rounds 100 years ago. Even automatics, as the Thompson, but except for the Prohibition-era gangs, people just didn’t use guns for mass murder. Not until the late sixties with Charlie Whitman, and remember how shocked people were? Speck, DeSalvo? No guns.
What happened, beginning in the late 60’s, that caused the shift in mindset?
Max,
Having fired a revolver, yes, you can get off several shots as fast as you can pull the trigger. With absolutely terrible chances of hitting anything smaller than an elephant at 10 feet. There may be a few people who, with a lot of practice (years), can do better, but not many.
There’s a reason why the military sidearm is not a revolver.
One of the reasons Prohibition was eliminated was the growing violence and prevalence of guns associated with it, you know.
Coincidentally with the introduction and widespread availability of semiautomatic handguns in the USA we see the rise of attempts to control them.
You think that’s overblown? Have you read his budget proposals? I was being kind.
sc,
Actually that coincided with Prohibition
What I think Romney is praying for is that he can simply wait it out. He’s counting on the short attention span, and short memory, of the American voter. In other words, he is assuming voters are stoopid, and is counting on that for his election chances.
But then, that’s been his campaign all along. The CEO model he so likes is that of a feudal manor lord who reaps profits from the peasantry while despoiling them. Such hereditary nobility assumed it was their divine right to
ruleget rich off the common folk, whom they have always viewed as little more than pack animals.Of course Americans would vote for that, right? After all, they are cruel even to themselves and each other — look how eager they are to end public pensions and to prevent poor people from getting health care.
rgbact,
And, oddly enough, if I use a quicky model that counts only PPP polling and assumes Obama gets the undecideds, Obama ends up with more electoral votes than in 2008.
I have chosen my model carefully, recognizing the biases of the polling agencies with enough data with which to tease out those biases. It’s not hard to do. Throwing out data that you don’t like is the first step in confirmation bias. You’d do well to be a little more dispassionate if your goal is prediction rather than cheerleading.
My assumptions are hardly major. If the election were held next Tuesday, Obama would win, period. But it’s not going to be next week, and there is another recession on the horizon. The only major assumption I’m making is that the recession doesn’t become evident to the bulk of voters until after the election. That’s it.
I don’t think he is one. But I do think he’s a policy wonk who is looking for simple solutions to complex problems. They solve the immediate issues, yes, but at costs that appear to me to be far too great to bear.
And, oddly enough, if I use a quicky model that counts only PPP
polling and assumes Obama gets the undecideds, Obama ends up with more
electoral votes than in 2008.
So if you look at my key assumptions.….and assume the exact opposite about them.…you get the exact opposite. You find that odd, do ya? Obama getting all the undecideds doesn’t sound reasonable based on history though. I think my assumption is far more realistic, but I admit its just my guess. Dick Morris says most undecideds go to challengers (especially if he’s non scary), so I’ll take his word for it until I hear better.
Throwing out data that you don’t like is the first step in confirmation bias.
Sorry, PPP has generally been WAY off from every other pollster this year. I don’t think anyone can fairly look at their data and believe its not generally useless (or they know something noone else does). Given they poll more than anyone.….that gives most models a potentially fatal flaw.
No true Scotsman uses PPP polls.
You’ll hear better on November 6. In the mean time, be aware this meme has been around for a long while. So has the opposite meme, that undecideds tend to stick with the devil they know. What you’re talking about, as Michael says, is confirmation bias, not some law of voting.
The most rational course would seem to me, taking all things as equal, to treat undecideds as undecided, and (in the absense of other compelling arguments) split them more or less evenly, or perhaps split them in ways similar to how the rest of their demographic / geographic group is split.
I suppose one could make an argument for eliminating the outliers on both sides of the polling universe — that would probably be both Rasmussen and PPP — but a better course is probably like Michael and Nate do, which is to account for anything that appears to be house effects in their previous polling.
rgbact, what your “model” appears to do is not only to reject data you don’t like, but also to invent data that’s more to your preference. It thus isn’t really a “model” in the usual sense of the word.
Interestingly, Alan Abramowitz writing at Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball did an analysis of how votes change between midsummer and Election Day:
Dick I like suckin’ toes! Morris predicted McCain would easily defeat Obama in 2008. Dick I have a Clinton fetish! Morris also predicted Hillary would never run for NY senator.
Interesting rgbact rails against PPP while at the same time quoting a frickin’ idiot who works for fixednoise!
Apologies to frickin’ fools …
The most rational course would seem to me, taking all things as equal, to treat undecideds as undecided,
Maybe. I take the position that when polls show the general populace is very unhappy with the country’s direction.….more undecideds spell bad news for an incumbent. Its an assumption. You’re free to disagree, as I am with others. PPP makes assumptions on which voters will turnout in their polling. That is the nature of making a forecast far into the future. Then we can all “correct” our models as Nov approaches and emerging data proves that our earlier assumptions were hairbrained.
It should be noted that murder rates are not strongly correlated with the availability of weapons — Brazil has much stricter gun laws than the United States yet a drastically higher murder rate, while the Swiss state provides firearms and ammunition to large sections of the population and yet its murder rate is very low. And if I may reach into history, a large portion of the Edo-period Japanese population was heavily armed and the country was generally very peaceful, whereas contemporary Europe was quite dangerous. As such dawolf’s assertion that the British government’s stance on firearms does anything beyond inconvenience law-abiding British subjects who may wish to own a weapon would seem to be false — murder rates are cultural rather than having anything to do with availability of weapons. In fact, the US violent crime rate has fallen substantially coincident with the loosening of gun laws in much of the country over the last decade.
Let’s recap, shall we:
Reagan was a very popular (2) time gov. of CA.
Reagan almost defeated an incumbent president in the 1976 Rep primary. Whereas mittens got annihilated by another RINO, McCain, in the 2008 Rep primary. He won the 2012 Rep primary by default.
Reagan was staight out of the actor’s studio both literally and figuratively.
Carter was a very weak president ie high inflation, high gas prices, failed Iran hostage rescue mission, etc. etc.
Kennedy challenged Carter for the Dem nomination.
Reagan was basically tied w/Carter in the polls until the last week when the polls broke for him and yet he only received 50.7% w/Anderson getting 6.6%.
>
mittens ain’t no Dutch er Bartles’ demi-god!
>
Voters still blame Bush43 more than Obama for the bad economy. Again, Obama’s state-of-the-art ground game/GOTV is up and runnin’ and mittens has teabagger astroturf on a good day.
mittens will have the $$$ advantage but, nothin’ kills a bad product quicker than good advertising.
mittens has no answer re: Obama’s Bain Capital attack.
mittens has no rational answer re: not releasing his tax returns.
mittens won MA gov. race w/49% running against a weak candidate who had a difficult primary and was outspent by Romney exponentially.
mittens has no answer re: his record as MA gov. ie leaving office w/a 35% job approval rating.
mittens didn’t save the Salt Lake City Olympics, the American taxpayer did.
mittens is soooo uncomfortable in his own skin it’s cringeworthy!
>
conservatives hate/despise Romney almost as much as they do Obama. Regrets, I’ve had a few …
>
Did I mention mittens is no Dutch!
>
Obama can lose OH/FL/VA and still easily win the election. Obama will not lose Ohio and Virginia.
Almost forgot, refer to #139 re: the (6) point voter demographic swing in favor of Dems from 2008 to 2012.
Stay tuned …
AW,
You will note that once I brought up the subject of possible cultural and societal causes, the thread went noticeably quiet. And NOTHING on that subject. As Michael notes, answers are seldom binary and not always the obvious.
AW,
From what I recall, this was a big part of Michael Moore’s point in Bowling for Columbine. We seem to have a culture addicted to violence. I do think it’s relevant to ask, however, whether it’s prudent to continue supplying a addict with easy access to heroin.
It’s also relevant to examine the situations in which gun deaths most often occur. Since most of them are accidental or are crimes of immediate passion, the presence of the murder weapon does suggest there’d be less of these sorts of shootings if the weapons hadn’t been present in the first place.
For people who are afraid of getting shot, and so buy a gun for protection, it may make sense to rethink that. Most shootings are by family members or close friends. The one thing that is most effective in reducing one’s likelihood of getting shot is to not have a gun in one’s own home. The second most effective step is to not visit people who do.
None of which touches on the question of whether the justification given in the Second Amendment for allowing the ownership of deadly weapons (“a well-regulated militia…”) still makes sense in the twenty first century,
Max,
I wouldn’t read too much into that. Particularly on a Saturday, people sometimes find other things to do. I just woke up from a nap, for instance.
In our discussion about Romney’s inability to react rationally to the questions about his tax returns, Krugman had a wonderful article about it today. Basically, many of the incredibly rich don’t think the rest of us have a right to question them.
dc,
“ I just woke up from a nap, for instance.”
Dude!!! It’s tough getting old, fat and lazy, ain’t it! LOL!!!!!
#180
Laissez majeste! Funny how Romney displays it, but the Roosevelts, Kennedys, even the Bushes seemed more satisfied with public service.
@Armchair Warlord
“As such dawolf’s assertion that the British government’s stance on firearms does anything beyond inconvenience law-abiding British subjects who may wish to own a weapon would seem to be false ”
I’ll take our 5% gun deaths thanks. And who are inconvenienced? Seriously, the number of people in this country who care at all about owning a gun is vanishingly small
It totally sucks. But it’s better than the alternative. Had I not stayed up until 6:30 am the night before, I wouldn’t have needed said nap. But that’s life eh?
Indeed yes. Krugman makes that point as well, that not everyone stays within the plutocratic bubble. The Romneys, however, seem to love it.
People who disapprove of universal health care ala Canada really need to read this.
I realize it won’t change your minds, because the issue for you is not actually about health care. But be aware that your arguments are senseless. Find another way to tell us why Americans have to suffer for your political gain.
dawolf,
So you do not trust your fellow countrymen to not shoot each other if allowed to exercise their natural rights which have been unjustly and oppressively curtailed by your government? And I’d like to see some opinion polling on that second statement, thanks.
dc,
If I may make a proposal -
There is tension in America between recognizing one’s constitutional right to own guns and use them responsibly and the fact of gun crime in this country, not to mention the role of loose American gun laws in providing a flood of weapons to Mexican narco-insurgents. I think the tension can be resolved by looking at the first part of the Second Amendment, where it refers to the “well-regulated Militia”.
The first step would be to separate sporting firearms from those primarily useful for killing people. This would be done by either convening a board with knowledgeable representatives from the armed services and federal law enforcement or by asking Jim Zumbo his opinion on the subject (
). Thus the categories of Uncontrolled and Controlled Firearms would be created. Antique weapons would be grandfathered out.
Uncontrolled Firearms would not be subject to regulation. If you wanted to own Controlled Firearms, on the other hand, you just joined the Militia. You would be subjected to a criminal background check, required to present yourself for service to the Nation if called, issued an ID card and armband to satisfy the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and required to demonstrate proficiency with your weaponry on an occasional basis. Your ID card would be scanned and the database updated when making purchases of weaponry and ammunition. It would be a federal crime to sell CFs to non-members of the Militia, and transfers between the Militia would be tracked. Members of the Militia would be required to promptly report thefts, etc.
In order to get the gun lobby in this country to swallow the above proposal I also propose that, as the Militia’s job is killing bad guys, fully-automatic weapons be made legal to import and manufacture in this country again, and onerous state restrictions on “evil” Controlled Firearms be struck down.
AW,
It’s an interesting proposal, and it encourages people who want to own “controlled” weapons to put their money (actually, their time and effort, even their lives) where their mouth is. I like the proposal in that it holds people responsible for their choices and their rhetoric.
I dislike the proposal, in that I don’t see any excuse for “uncontrolled” deadly products whose sole and stated purpose is to kill. Nor do I see any actual use for a “militia” in our current century. YMMV.
But if the choice is between the current NRA position that “all weapons should be available to all people”, or your proposal, I’d take yours. And then I’d complain that those were my only two choices
dc,
I primarily wanted to avoid inconveniencing casual hunters, which are practically the entire male population where I grew up, and who universally hunt with weapons of limited military usefulness. Similarly, I see no reason to regulate small-caliber target guns, antiques and curiosities.
At the same time I –do– want to inconvenience survivalist, anti-government gun nuts who accumulate firearms to fight off the gubmit on Judgement Day. And my proposal would probably have stopped this shooter, as his purchase pattern would have raised red flags and led to investigation.
I don’t mind “inconveniencing casual hunters.” Being a “casual hunter” is not like being a “casual XBox player.”
For one thing, “casual hunters” are “casually” killing living beings. This should be done with some care and acknowledgment and respect for the lives they are taking — simply for recreation.
For another, “casual hunters” are using equipment that could kill people pretty easily. It’s equipment that is intended to kill, unlike, say, a car or a basketball or plate of spaghetti. It should be as difficult to obtain as any other intentionally lethal substance or object — like strychnine or sarin gas or a single-dose vial of anthrax. Or a hypodermic needle, for that matter.
Unlike, say, a kitchen knife, a handgun has only one purpose — to cause intentional harm. It does nothing else. You can argue that it can be used defensively, but even for that function, it must be either used to cause harm or as a threat to cause harm. It does nothing else. You can at least open a letter with a knife.
I see no legitimate purpose for firearms for anyone who doesn’t kill their own food, or has a need to protect livestock from wolves. But I admit I may not have full understanding of all life-situations. So if someone else wants to endanger his or her own life by owning a firearm, that’s okay with me — provided there are reasonable protections, and provided such a person endangers no one else.
DC… thanks for posting that blog article on Canadian health care. I’ve been saying things like that here for years, but it’s hard to get people to believe what it’s really like in Canada. Here, nobody delays going to the doctor because of what it might cost. Nobody stays in a job they hate because they’re afraid of losing coverage. Nobody is bankrupted by the costs of catastrophic illness. Everybody gets the same level of health care, everybody chooses their own doctor, nobody EVER “comes between you and your doctor,” wait times are not extensive, serious conditions are treated immediately, equipment is
top-notch, outcomes are better and system costs are less while personal income tax is about the same as the US and corporate taxes are much, much lower.
Bart once asked me, with genuine curiosity, why I would be so strongly supportive of universal health care when I am personally able to afford any kind of health coverage I would need.
I told him that when I get to live in a place where every adult I meet has the same coevrage I do regardless of their circumstances, and every child gets exactly the same care as my own grandchildren, then my life is greatly enriched.
I don’t think Bart was able to grasp why I would feel that way. I wonder if any die-hard Republican could grasp it. Their attitude is probably best summed up by the anonymous guy in the comments after the article who says that even if the system is better, cheaper, readily available and covers everybody, it is still evil because God should be paramount in all our lives, and universal health care makes people worship the government more than God.
So yeah… there is that…
@filistro,
Don’t conservatives say we should comparison shop? If the government gives me better necessary services than God does, where should I spend my money?
Free market, y’know.
Fili,
What you describe is largely a consequence of universal coverage– the pool of insured is maximized which minimizes the risk and costs of insurance. In the US there are fifty pools of insured (one per state) and each pool is parsed up fify+ ways …Don’t forget to mention that everyone pays insurance, its just much lower than in the US due to the above and various government contributions from taxes (both income tax _and_ “sin” taxes). I would never have started my current business in the states due to the cost of health insurance, but as you point out, here in the
socialist paradisemore rational northern neighbor I can do so without fear of a health crisis bankrupting me.@DrFunguy
This is why here in America we have to stop referring to “universal health care” and start talking about “job creating universal health care.”
Probably the single best thing we could do to help small businesses get started, or to grow existing ones, is to have a national program of job creating universal health care.
But see, I suspect this is one of the reasons big corporate interests and the rich people who own them are opposed to universal care. Employees are frightened to leave their jobs, because health care today is neither cheap nor portable. People are afraid to start their own businesses (which would compete with those wealthy corporate interests) because they have to pay for their own insurance.
The obscenely rich don’t care, because they can afford any medical care they need. As Grog is fond of pointing out, we’ve got great health care here — if you’re obscenely rich and can afford it. Otherwise, you are a slave to your employer, and corporate interests like that.
@AW
“So you do not trust your fellow countrymen to not shoot each other if allowed to exercise their natural rights which have been unjustly and oppressively curtailed by your government?”
I do not trust my fellow countrymen with guns, no. More guns = more deaths from guns, its pretty simple.
It isn’t a natural right btw. That’s an americanism, not a universal. It actually pains me to hear you refer to it that way because it so clearly shows your thought process on this matter as having been trained by your upbringing and the language used.
Those “rights” you refer to have been justly curtailed by a government with the support of the people btw. Nothing unjust or unreasonable about it. See Dunblane Massacre for part of the reason.
Hunting is as much a part of human nature as gathering. Unless and until DrFunGuy and his ilk manage to clone tomatoes (or potatoes, or carrots) and give us all the flavors we can get from hunting (pheasant is, after all, the ultimate “free range” fowl, and tasty beyond all others, prepared properly) those who have grown up with it will continue to hunt.
Just as those of us who have grown up with or learned to enjoy gathering wild mushrooms will continue to do that.
Are either of these occupations “natural” rights? Hardly. Just try and hunt on a farmer’s land — or poach his morels — without permission and you’ll find out. They must be exercised with a sensibility for the rights and safety of yourself and others. But whether you buy your fowl at the store, wrapped in plastic and with all traces of its origin carefully eliminated, or you pick them up in the field after being shot, your “rights” don’t enter into the equation.
That said, I personally find it distasteful to have people shooting for “sport”. And it’s absolutely disgusting to my mind for executives and the like to get paid-for hunting trips on “game farms” (an oxymoron, IMO), where birds are planted for them to walk up on and shoot in a pathetic parody of the real hunting experience. Anyone who can defend that activity as a “natural right” has passed beyond the pale of understanding.
“
It isn’t a natural right btw. That’s an americanism, not a universal. It actually pains me to hear you refer to it that way because it so clearly shows your thought process on this matter as having been trained by your upbringing and the language used.“
da,
With due respect. That is only your opinion, not a fact. Here in the Colonies, we differentiate between the rights granted us by our Sovereign (Oops, that would be NONE), and those recognized by our founding documents: The Declaration of Independence (from Great Britain’s King) and The Constitution. Inherent in those documents is the acknowledgement that certain Rights come to citizens, not from government (king or otherwise) but “endowed by their Creator”. Natural rights. The right to self protection and the protection of home, family and belongings is precisely one of those rights. And, in a world where those who would wish harm to you may well be armed, the natural right to be able to arm oneself to so defend is an extension of the right of self defense.
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution recognizes the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”, under reasonable regulation, in an explicit statement of the very natural right. Yes, an “Americanism”, but one we fought the UK twice over and won with blood and treasure of Americans.
Best.
Max,
How is your argument distinguishable from the ultimate “appeal to authority fallacy”?
dc,
we’ve got great health care here — if you’re obscenely rich and can afford it.
We also have great health care if you have insurance. You don’t have to be “obscenely rich” to have access to it. (Btw, I didn’t know being rich is “obcene” in this country.)
A couple more thougts.…
Every single person I’ve seen interviewed from the theater shooting either mentioned God or said they were laying on the ground praying as they heard shots being fired. I thought it was interesting, particularly coming from a young group of Americans.
Drowing is the second leading cause of death among children in the United States; second only to automobile accidents. Why are we not banning swimming pools?
Does anyone actually believe that banning guns will cause criminals to suddenly become law abiding citizens and not have guns? Because meth is illegal and there are a lot of.…you know.…meth labs in my county.
GROG,
Banning swimming pools? The drownings I read about are in ponds and lakes. Besides, that’s a negative approach. Perhaps we should require a certain level of swimming proficiency as a requirement for entry into, say, 6th grade.
GROG,
Without opining on the morality of either approach, it seems to me that, if you want to either make honest people out of meth users or prevent them from having guns, it would be politically easier to legalize meth. The drug war complex is marginally less politically powerful than the NRA.
Shortchain,
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy is the authority being appealed to is not a legitimate authority on the subject. I think Thomas Jefferson is a legitimate authority on political philosophy.