Obama and the Left....Excell as Salesmen for Firearm Manufactures

[Revoltingest]

A smaller government may or may not lead to more liberty-- it's not the size that matters-- at least that is what I try to convince my wife of. Liberty more relates to what government may or may not do versus its size.

Also, if you remember one of our previous conversations whereas I spelled out in some detail the economic/political approach I prefer, it would amount to a much smaller government. Betcha forgot.

Also, not only have I not endorsed more military spending, there have been some other threads whereas I mentioned that I do believe we should reduce some of it.

Perhaps the term, "small government", isn't clear enuf.
To argue reduction in rights to own weapons, this is to give more power over us to government.
This is not the "small government" path.

 

[metis]

Perhaps the term, "small government", isn't clear enuf.
To argue reduction in rights to own weapons, this is to give more power over us to government.
This is not the "small government" path.

Liberty is not monolithic, so if the proliferation of guns makes us less safe whereas we have to take more precautions or live in fear, we have lost some of our liberty. I feel much safer walking the streets of Toronto and Montreal and Amsterdam and even Jerusalem, for examples, than I do in pretty much any major American city.

Therefore, anyone who thinks that having all these guns around is giving us more liberty, I'd suggest that they really need to rethink that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Liberty is not monolithic, so if the proliferation of guns makes us less safe whereas we have to take more precautions or live in fear, we have lost some of our liberty. I feel much safer walking the streets of Toronto and Montreal and Amsterdam and even Jerusalem, for examples, than I do in pretty much any major American city.
Therefore, anyone who thinks that having all these guns around is giving us more liberty, I'd suggest that they really need to rethink that.

So you favor giving government more power over us to curb all this gun ownership?
This is to crave security (ie, "feel much safer") at the expense of liberty.
Not so small government, I'd say.

 

[metis]

So you favor giving government more power over us to curb all this gun ownership?
This is to crave security (ie, "feel much safer") at the expense of liberty.
Not so small government, I'd say.

I'm a pragmatist to a fault, so sometimes we may need more government and sometimes less.

For example, if you want smaller government, why not get rid of the military? How about getting rid of all government regulations of any type? How about just getting rid of all governments, national, state, and local? Do you really believe the latter will lead you to have the liberty that you say you want?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm a pragmatist to a fault, so sometimes we may need more government and sometimes less.

For example, if you want smaller government, why not get rid of the military? How about getting rid of all government regulations of any type? How about just getting rid of all governments, national, state, and local? Do you really believe the latter will lead you to have the liberty that you say you want?

In common parlance, "small government" is not about size or number of functions, although those are related.
Example....
Eliminating the military would indeed be a physical reduction in government's size & cost,
but some typical issues are.....
- Should our military engage in pre-emptive attacks on other countries?
- Should our military handle domestic affairs (the old posse comitatus issue)?
- Should our military be limited to defense of the country, or expanded to nation building?

I see "small government" as having a military whose purpose is defense only.
I don't see all or nothing questions about military, regulation, speech, etc as relevant....they're just red herrings with a hint of straw.

 

[metis]

In common parlance, "small government" is not about size or number of functions, although those are related.
Example....
Eliminating the military would indeed be a physical reduction in government's size & cost,
but some typical issues are.....
- Should our military engage in pre-emptive attacks on other countries?
- Should our military handle domestic affairs (the old posse comitatus issue)?
- Should our military be limited to defense of the country, or expanded to nation building?

I see "small government" as having a military whose purpose is defense only.
I don't see all or nothing questions about military, regulation, speech, etc as relevant....they're just red herrings with a hint of straw.

You somehow missed the point of me doing that, which is that "smaller" should not be an end unto itself, and liberty itself does not have a direct relationship with smallness. Libertarians can be from different molds, such as "left" and "right", and I'm more along the line of the former, but not on all matters.

My main libertarian approach has equality as its base, even though full equality is not possible nor even desirable except maybe in an abstract way. People who are oppressed, whether it be through oppressive government or dire poverty, have very few liberties. If we're afraid to leave the protection of our homes because of high crime rates, we have less liberty than if we live in a safer environment. If we are so dirt poor that even our kids are not eating that well, we have less liberty. Or when someone has to choose between getting the medications they may need versus eating, they have less liberty.

The problem with too many on the right is their "libertarian" approach is all too often just self-serving, namely that they want their "privileges" at the expense of others, which to me is not a true commitment to actually philosophically being a "libertarian". Barry Goldwater lamented that all too many self-proclaimed "conservatives" only were taking that position for selfish reasons.

To put it another way, if I'm just being a libertarian because I want to pay less taxes, and I want to keep my guns, and I... -- that's not libertarian in my book-- that's the worst religion of all, namely I-ism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We have many things which provide enjoyment, but could possibly be used to kill....
- Bigfoot type trucks
- Cars & bikes capable of nearly 200 MPH
- Rifles which can take down an elephant
- Airplanes

Those things are rarely used to kill, and rarely result in death, and flying is very safe and kamikazi-style attacks are very rare. Guns, more so than anything, are used more frequently with malicious intent and the explicit will of injuring and killing. Yes, other things like knives are used, but those other things are generally much easier to defend against, and they are more likely to present an opportunity for self-defense, and not nearly as deadly. And it's rather difficult to stab someone to death, unlike accidentally shooting someone, which tends to happen a lot.

All risks need to be weighed against what can or cannot be done, plus what the potential handicaps and problems may be.

Sport and competitive shooting is generally very safe, there isn't an increase in knee injuries due to sport shootings, and there will always be many more people in the ER from injuries due a group of people getting together and slamming into each other over a ball than there will be a group of people getting together and target shooting.

And it was not I who introduced the word "giggles" in this context.

If someone gets worried over target shooting, even using assault rifles, then their fear is highly irrational as the chances are very high that those running the shooting range are putting safety to a very top priority, and certainly with far more concern than most people you pass on a road driving. You generally do not see archery enthusiasts using their weapons for murder, robbery, or intimidation, and that is because they are likely to be responsible with their hobby, trained, and have had safety well indoctrinated into them. It's pretty much the same for sport and competitive shooters. It's kind of like when I laugh at my dad seeing him jump around and shouting because he's terrified of a little harmless garter snake. There is no reason to be that afraid, and we, as a society, are conditioned to laugh at such things.

 

[Revoltingest]

Those things are rarely used to kill, and rarely result in death, and flying is very safe and kamikazi-style attacks are very rare.
.

Exactly!
The same is true for full auto weapons, which were the subject of that particular discussion.

 

[esmith]

Nice song-and-dance. And it was not I who introduced the word "giggles" in this context.

I do believe that my statement "just for giggles" was misconstrued, it was not directed at firing automatic weapons; but at the links I provided. In other words I meant "will post all of the businesses that have fully automatic weapons just for your enjoyment in case you ever go to Lost Wages"

 

[metis]

Sport and competitive shooting is generally very safe, there isn't an increase in knee injuries due to sport shootings, and there will always be many more people in the ER from injuries due a group of people getting together and slamming into each other over a ball than there will be a group of people getting together and target shooting.

If someone gets worried over target shooting, even using assault rifles, then their fear is highly irrational as the chances are very high that those running the shooting range are putting safety to a very top priority, and certainly with far more concern than most people you pass on a road driving. You generally do not see archery enthusiasts using their weapons for murder, robbery, or intimidation, and that is because they are likely to be responsible with their hobby, trained, and have had safety well indoctrinated into them. It's pretty much the same for sport and competitive shooters. It's kind of like when I laugh at my dad seeing him jump around and shouting because he's terrified of a little harmless garter snake. There is no reason to be that afraid, and we, as a society, are conditioned to laugh at such things.

But the point is that when things do go wrong, these become the weapons of choice, along with large clips. Therefore, even though we truly are dealing with fewer chances than with some other guns, such as handguns, they simply are not really necessary.

Most of my relatives are hunters, and I have no problem with them doing that nor with the guns they're using. One can have target practice with considerable less lethal guns, or maybe even pick up bow & arrow.

IOW, these guns are expendable, especially considering the risks they pose.

 

[metis]

I do believe that my statement "just for giggles" was misconstrued, it was not directed at firing automatic weapons; but at the links I provided. In other words I meant "will post all of the businesses that have fully automatic weapons just for your enjoyment in case you ever go to Lost Wages"

Thanks for the clarification.

BTW, I hate Vegas-- "it's better in the Bahamas".

 

[esmith]

To follow up on my hypothesis. Went in to my local gun store to take possession of a firearm I had ordered. Fortunately for me that I had my CCW permit. The NICS computer was down due to being overloaded. Store owner said it had been down most of the day.

 

[Revoltingest]

But the point is that when things do go wrong, these become the weapons of choice, along with large clips. Therefore, even though we truly are dealing with fewer chances than with some other guns, such as handguns, they simply are not really necessary.

Most of my relatives are hunters, and I have no problem with them doing that nor with the guns they're using. One can have target practice with considerable less lethal guns, or maybe even pick up bow & arrow.

IOW, these guns are expendable, especially considering the risks they pose.

How do you feel about banning cars which can significantly exceed the speed limit?
(This is actually practical with a GPS linked speed limiter on the engine+transmission system.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Exactly!
The same is true for full auto weapons, which were the subject of that particular discussion.

They're illegal. In many places. Even in the hyped up gun utopia of Sweden if someone wants to keep their gun once their military service is over the gun has to be serviced to have the full-auto feature removed.

But the point is that when things do go wrong, these become the weapons of choice, along with large clips.

Not really. Handguns are the most frequently used gun in crime. We do need better gun regulation and control, but we need more than just that to help with the mass shootings, because it isn't unusual to find shooters that had guns and bombs made from everyday household stuff. Gun regulation is a first step, and while it can help with the overall gun problem, without changes in other areas we may still have mass shootings.

 

[metis]

How do you feel about banning cars which can significantly exceed the speed limit?
(This is actually practical with a GPS linked speed limiter on the engine+transmission system.)

The problem with that would be situations, such as passing another car on a two-lane highway or trying to avoid an accident, whereas some extra speed might be necessary. Even though I'm respectful of advanced technology, nevertheless human decisions are still often needed. How many times have you gone to pay for something whereas the clerk can't figure out your change unless the register tells them?

 

[esmith]

But the point is that when things do go wrong, these become the weapons of choice, along with large clips. Therefore, even though we truly are dealing with fewer chances than with some other guns, such as handguns, they simply are not really necessary.

Most of my relatives are hunters, and I have no problem with them doing that nor with the guns they're using. One can have target practice with considerable less lethal guns, or maybe even pick up bow & arrow.

IOW, these guns are expendable, especially considering the risks they pose.

The problem is that you are attempting to rationalize your stance on your beliefs/opinions. I personally disagree with what your assessment of the issue is. Yes, I know you can throw reams of information at me that support your opinion. Is it not reasonable to come to the conclusion that the greater number of owners of firearms and the accessories (large magazines for one) do not pose a problem. It is only a very small percentage that use them in a horrendous manner. At the present time can you name one incident that involved a firearm (other than gang shootings) that involved the weapons and/or accessories that was not done by a mental unstable person or a terrorist plot. I am pretty sure that the answer will be "none". Therefore would it not be better to work to find a way to identify the mentally ill and to keep them from obtaining a weapon. In the case of terrorists , would it not be better to identify them before they have a chance to act since their weapons of choice in the near future would be considerably more devastating than firearms, in other words, NBC warfare (dirty bomb vice large yield nuclear weapon in the "N" triad...but possible).
In other words, do not harm the many to fix a small problem(incident wise)

 

[metis]

Not really. Handguns are the most frequently used gun in crime. We do need better gun regulation and control, but we need more than just that to help with the mass shootings, because it isn't unusual to find shooters that had guns and bombs made from everyday household stuff. Gun regulation is a first step, and while it can help with the overall gun problem, without changes in other areas we may still have mass shootings.

Yes, really. How many mass shootings have we seen whereas an AK-47 or an AK-15 is used? How many times have we seen these mass murderers having large clips with these powerful guns?

Last night some friends and I had dinner at a sports bar near us, and one of them has a son who is an officer in a local police department. Not long ago, he went to see his son have target practice with a police-issue AR-15, and what he said was that there's enough fire-power with those bullets to go through two walls (which he pointed to) and still have enough to go through a piece of fairly thick metal.

So, given how these guns have been used, and given the type of fire power they have, why do we need to have these guns and large clips available to just about anyone and everyone? Just so they can have fun? Gee, maybe we can use that same exact excuse to allow people to go out and buy their own bazookas or hand-held anti-aircraft weapons so they can have target practice with them as well.

Sorry, but there simply is no excuse, imo, why such weapons must be in the possession of the general public whereas it endangers human life as we've seen.

 

[metis]

The problem is that you are attempting to rationalize your stance on your beliefs/opinions. I personally disagree with what your assessment of the issue is. Yes, I know you can throw reams of information at me that support your opinion. Is it not reasonable to come to the conclusion that the greater number of owners of firearms and the accessories (large magazines for one) do not pose a problem. It is only a very small percentage that use them in a horrendous manner. At the present time can you name one incident that involved a firearm (other than gang shootings) that involved the weapons and/or accessories that was not done by a mental unstable person or a terrorist plot. I am pretty sure that the answer will be "none". Therefore would it not be better to work to find a way to identify the mentally ill and to keep them from obtaining a weapon. In the case of terrorists , would it not be better to identify them before they have a chance to act since their weapons of choice in the near future would be considerably more devastating than firearms, in other words, NBC warfare (dirty bomb vice large yield nuclear weapon in the "N" triad...but possible).
In other words, do not harm the many to fix a small problem(incident wise)

Only roughly 5% of the mass shootings in this country involve those whom are certified as being mentally ill. As far as terrorists are concerned, the latest in California involved two people not on any terrorist list. We also have home-grown terrorists as well, and we have seen too many of them way too often.

Yes, we still need to work diligently to identify those whom are mentally ill or whom are terrorists, but we should also be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

[esmith]

Only roughly 5% of the mass shootings in this country involve those whom are certified as being mentally ill. As far as terrorists are concerned, the latest in California involved two people not on any terrorist list. We also have home-grown terrorists as well, and we have seen too many of them way too often.

Yes, we still need to work diligently to identify those whom are mentally ill or whom are terrorists, but we should also be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

No, we do not need new laws on firearms, enforce the old ones first. That sound like a plan. You say only 5% of the mass shooting in this country involve the mentally ill. If so, who are the other 95%? Break it down by the general groupings.
So, how was this woman able to get into the country since we know(now)she was radicalize before she even arrived?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How many times have we seen these mass murderers having large clips with these powerful guns?

Never that I'm away of. High capacity magazines, not that often.

Yes, really. How many mass shootings have we seen whereas an AK-47 or an AK-15 is used?

The guns used vary. And you also have to consider guns like the AR-15 are frequently allowed in countries that don't have problems with mass shootings. A major problem we do have is relaxed enforcement of existing laws, poor regulations, and a reluctance to add any further regulations (or do that without screaming the government is going to take everyone's guns and turn gun owners into criminals).
And an interesting point that pro-gun nuts do not like is the fact that mass shootings rarely happen in gun-free zones. It just goes to show how distorted our national discourse concerning guns is.