192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
hightor
 
  4  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 04:43 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
But you don't care about freedom, we do.

I don't know man. There are plenty of countries with much more restrictive firearms laws and those people don't look like they're enslaved or suffering under the tyrant's yoke. And there are places where lots of people carry weapons around, places where I don't really want to live — like Guatemala, Chechnya, and Somalia.
blatham
 
  4  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 05:04 pm
@hightor,
That's a claim that arises frequently in the modern right. georgeob gives voice to it regularly. "Freedom" or "liberty" have only one proper definition or description and it is the one held by McG and georgeob. Which, one has to acknowledge, is highly convenient.
blatham
 
  3  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 05:08 pm
The other day, I mentioned the wonderful series "The Fifties" based on David Halberstam's book. I've just watched episode 1 again (I think there are eight) on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ooU8B2MBF8

If you dare, you will find rather scary parallels to the present. But regardless of that, it's really worth one's time to look back at this period to help understand how the present has such powerful antecedents in that period.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -3  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 05:35 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
But you don't care about freedom, we do.

I don't know man. There are plenty of countries with much more restrictive firearms laws and those people don't look like they're enslaved or suffering under the tyrant's yoke. And there are places where lots of people carry weapons around, places where I don't really want to live — like Guatemala, Chechnya, and Somalia.


You agree that none of those countries are America, right?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 05:36 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
My point, Baldimo, is that you don't need modern military-styled weapons to protect yourself in the case of a home intrusion. Maybe in the case of a zombie apocalypse but not to protect the cash register at the local bodega. The "militarized" guns being sold today are marketed specifically for that purpose — to pander to a certain type of customer:

Need doesn't matter. What matters is whether there is a good reason to regulate cosmetic features like pistol grips.

Laws that impact Constitutional rights are allowed only if there is a good reason for having them.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 05:37 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

That's a claim that arises frequently in the modern right. georgeob gives voice to it regularly. "Freedom" or "liberty" have only one proper definition or description and it is the one held by McG and georgeob. Which, one has to acknowledge, is highly convenient.


What does freedom or liberty mean, other than the absence of external restriant? In the case of politics the reference is usually to the absence of constraints imposed by government or law. If you have a different definition in mind please specify it.

There is no uncertainty or convenience associated with it.

Whether certain freedoms are desirable or not ( and to what degree) is, of course a much debated issue. In almost any matter involving human behavior, many related elements of prevailing behaviors and values are invaiably involved in determining an optimum or desirable solution in a particular case. Some things that work well in Finland may not be as effective in Guatemala, and of course the preferences of the Finns and Guatemalans must be considered as well.

In the United States our Constitution establishes both limits on the powers of the Federal Government and some freedoms that attend all citizens.

I assume there are some differences in Canada, but they are issues for Canadians, not me.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 05:38 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
I haven't seen my local militia in action lately, but I don't see why they couldn't train with surplus M-14s. Firearms can last a long time before they become obsolete.

Presumably militiamen would buy modern weapons if buying their own weapons.

But if the government wanted to give militiamen M-14s for free, there would be nothing wrong with that.

Training with M-14s wouldn't help militiamen operate Stinger missiles I suspect.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 05:39 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
When it comes to arms, we see qualitative limits — no machine guns, no suppressors, no bazookas etc, without special permits. The "right" has been infringed:

Infringements are only allowed if there is a good reason for having the law, and only if the law is narrowly tailored so that it has no impact beyond that purpose.


hightor wrote:
The fact is, if the justices see that social conditions warrant it, this 5-4 decision can be reversed.

Only if we slip up and allow the Democrats to take our Constitution away from us.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 05:40 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
"Styled" means it looks like the real thing. When a cop confronts someone brandishing a .38 he'll behave differently than when someone's carrying a military look-alike.

When a long gun has a pistol grip on it, the only thing it looks like is a long gun with a pistol grip.


hightor wrote:
For self-defense I don't see why anyone would need more than 9 or 10 rounds which is what most semi-auto pistols hold.

Handgun rounds are underpowered and it might require several good hits to stop an attack against you.

And not every trigger pull is going to result in a good hit.

And people might need to defend against multiple attackers.

I have a rule of thumb that I abide by though. If the police can get by with such a restriction, then it is probably compatible with self defense requirements.

So with that in mind, would there be any problem with limiting police guns to 10 rounds?


hightor wrote:
And much of that banning talk is spread by the pro-gun side.

We have actual examples of intent to ban.

For instance Obama's recent executive orders banning guns from disabled people who don't balance their own checkbooks.

Also the bans on pistol grips.

Also, far-Left localities show what kind of gun laws the Left would impose if they had their way.


hightor wrote:
Maybe the gun manufacturers can start making guns that look friendlier, like those pink ones they market to women.

Fine if it is voluntary. Unacceptable for cosmetic appearances to be mandated by law (no good reason for such a law).
oralloy
 
  -3  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 05:41 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
All freedoms are balanced against how it impacts others freedoms McG. I care about freedom, I just apparently have a different view on how it impacts others (versus how little I'd really be impacted).

Can you think of a good reason for a law banning pistol grips on a long guns?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 05:49 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
I don't know man. There are plenty of countries with much more restrictive firearms laws and those people don't look like they're enslaved or suffering under the tyrant's yoke. And there are places where lots of people carry weapons around, places where I don't really want to live — like Guatemala, Chechnya, and Somalia.

If people don't have the right to have guns suitable for self defense, they are not free.

Human cattle can indeed be complacent though. I find it a tragic situation, but I know of no way to help them.
farmerman
 
  5  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 05:53 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
If people don't have the right to have guns suitable for self defense, they are not free
But are we safe?. I recall om sig when asked if hed come to my aid, and he said no bcause he wasnt affected.

Wow.

hightor
 
  4  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 05:59 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy, to save you the effort, I don't give a rat's ass about pistol grips.

If someone can use a hip-fired weapon effectively I don't see an objection. I don't see why demonstrated competence shouldn't be an accessory to the right to keep and bear a firearm.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 06:15 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

That's a claim that arises frequently in the modern right. georgeob gives voice to it regularly. "Freedom" or "liberty" have only one proper definition or description and it is the one held by McG and georgeob. Which, one has to acknowledge, is highly convenient.


You're Canadian, you are used to having your rights trampled and then apologizing about saying anything about it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  5  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 06:16 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
What does freedom or liberty mean, other than the absence of external restriant? In the case of politics the reference is usually to the absence of constraints imposed by government or law. If you have a different definition in mind please specify it.
There is no uncertainty or convenience associated with it.

On the issue of convenience, you quite conveniently beg the question in the bolded sentence. That is, you define "liberty" in a manner that gets the answer you want. Government or law are the sources of restraint of liberty. And you add, to further close off the matter, this is a certainty.

Imagine a despot, happy and content in his absolutist control over all the people in his court or any who might influence his court or his control or his ability to satisfy the slightest personal whim no matter how immoral or selfish. Imagine further that he cares only about such things and cares not at all concerning his principality or kingdom or nation. Anything that goes on out there, totally without relevance to him. And out there, whatever "laws" that exist relate only to treasonous (as he, in his self-concerns, defines that) behavior. And out there, he has no "government" other than soldiers and tax-collectors. Pirates raid, rapists rape, bullies murder, thieves steal, tanners dump poisons into the local well, children are forced into gruelling labor at five years of age by local thugs, artisans seeking to organize are murdered, etc.

Talk to me about the desirable state of liberty enjoyed by those in that community, george.

blatham
 
  5  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 06:26 pm
@george
By the way, I'm taking my time with Machiavelli/Livy, going through the (very good) introduction quite carefully. I have some background in this period via my study of Shakespeare and Renaissance thought around that time but I really hadn't studied much regarding Italian thinking specifically. And, as always with this sort of study, one has to try and drop assumptions we hold presently which will be or might be entirely inaccurate in another time/place.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 06:43 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
But are we safe?

No one is ever safe.


farmerman wrote:
I recall om sig when asked if hed come to my aid, and he said no bcause he wasnt affected.
Wow.

It might be a legal issue. Some jurisdictions are pretty strict in their rules that self defense can only be for one's immediate family. If you try to help someone else you get prosecuted for being a vigilante.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 06:44 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
oralloy, to save you the effort, I don't give a rat's ass about pistol grips.

Why all the posts questioning why people "need" them?


hightor wrote:
If someone can use a hip-fired weapon effectively I don't see an objection. I don't see why demonstrated competence shouldn't be an accessory to the right to keep and bear a firearm.

There is no such thing as a hip-fired weapon.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 07:00 pm
@oralloy,
I've traveled to over 80 countries, and have always felt safe.
Even in the wilds of Africa.
blatham
 
  4  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 07:04 pm
And now, for a gentle reminder on who holds the codes to launch nukes
Quote:
...In other words, people close to Trump tend to characterize him as a powerful, petulant child.

A new Politico report, quoting sources from Trump's 2016 campaign team, only helps reinforce the thesis.
Quote:
President Donald Trump's former campaign staffers claim they cracked the code for tamping down his most inflammatory tweets, and they say the current West Wing staff would do well to take note.

The key to keeping Trump's Twitter habit under control, according to six former campaign officials, is to ensure that his personal media consumption includes a steady stream of praise. And when no such praise was to be found, staff would turn to friendly outlets to drum some up -- and make sure it made its way to Trump's desk.

It's a fascinating dynamic: while placating and distracting Trump sounds exhausting, it also sounds incredibly easy. According to these campaign staffers, the Republican's ego was routinely bruised by coverage that hurt his feelings, but aides discovered they could quickly make him feel better by planting favorable stories in conservative outlets and then showing them the reports they helped create.
Benen
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.51 seconds on 05/14/2025 at 03:58:12