Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
So what does your suggestion of an abridgement and restriction on communication along with additional suspensions of civil liberties have to do with regulation of assault weapons?
"The people using the guns improperly are influenced by and/or instructed by those who persuade them to or tell them to use the guns improperly. That is why we need limitations on free speech and restrictions on the means of communication of such improper speech e.g. social media. That is why we also need suspension of some civil liberties for those people. You can not do one without the other if you want to be successful. "
As I said earlier to you...You cannot be serious. The terrorists "hate us for our freedoms" so we fight them by casting the tenets of our Constitution in the trash can? I was hoping that the Patriot Act would have been finally recognized as a surrendering of our values, but perhaps not.
The only thing more objectionable I've heard recently is Trumps desire to kill the families of any terrorist. I'm afraid to even ask you of your opinion on that "solution".
It looks like you are firmly against any and all restrictions of assault weapons.
As I said earlier to you...You cannot be serious. The terrorists "hate us for our freedoms" so we fight them by casting the tenets of our Constitution in the trash can? I was hoping that the Patriot Act would have been finally recognized as a surrendering of our values, but perhaps not.
The only thing more objectionable I've heard recently is Trumps desire to kill the families of any terrorist. I'm afraid to even ask you of your opinion on that "solution".
It looks like you are firmly against any and all restrictions of assault weapons.
Throughout the ages people have fought and killed for only one thing an idea - religion, socialism, communism, democracy, racism, love - they all have one thing in common - they are an idea.
Do you really think getting rid of one tool will change anything? Knives, suicide vests, poison, viruses, radiation are all available.
You say "terrorist hate us for our freedoms". That is the old ways of thinking. They want us out of their area of the world. They want their people in western Europe and many other places in the world.
Stop the idea and you stop the killing. You want the security you seek admit what I said is true but in the end you will have neither security or freedom - and you deserve neither. People who propose the taking away of guns just want to pain to go away and they think that is the answer.
"The people using the guns improperly are influenced by and/or instructed by those who persuade them to or tell them to use the guns improperly. That is why we need limitations on free speech and restrictions on the means of communication of such improper speech e.g. social media. That is why we also need suspension of some civil liberties for those people. You can not do one without the other if you want to be successful. "
The terrorists are winning and they will win because they will do ALL that is needed to win. While those who want to take away guns are trying to do as little as possible.
You say the terrorists are winning, and will win...and we must abandon certain Constitutional rights and privileges in order to combat them.
In reality, they aren't winning. Not by any stretch of the imagination, or any measurement. Your rhetoric is one of persistent fear and loathing, one we have become all too familiar with recently. And actually, THAT is something we need to also confront and eliminate.
We can combat the terrorists with reasonable means...and will do so.
In reality, they aren't winning. Not by any stretch of the imagination, or any measurement. Your rhetoric is one of fear and loathing, one we have become all too familiar with recently. And actually, THAT is something we need to also confront and eliminate.
We can combat the terrorists with reasonable means...and will do so.
Who says they aren't winning ... they are getting you to concede some of your freedom and you will continue to do so. And as you do so more of them are coming here. Because you don't know who or what or how to fight them.
From MJG's commentary: "History tells us that criminals and terrorists will always find inventive ways to secure weaponry." - I for one am tired of hearing that NRA nonsense. By that argument than nothing should ever be regulated in a free society, for criminals will always find a way to get their hands on drugs, child pornography, dangerous automobiles, etc. etc. Fact is we do regulate many other things with some measure of success.
I'm sure MJG is aware from news reports that the weapons used in the California tragedy were in fact purchased legally (by a friend of the male suspect).
>> light the light and hold up the mirror so you can see who you are.
Now *that* is amusing.
It is a continuum and some are stupidly arguing absolutes. Of course there will be knives, duh. No one is handwaving about ending aggression. The point is to do something meaningful about weapons with no purpose whatsoever other than the speedy murder of numerous persons. All the arguments against that are the worst sort of thrown sand.
DM: "Of course there will be knives, duh. No one is handwaving about ending aggression. The point is to do something meaningful about weapons with no purpose whatsoever other than the speedy murder of numerous persons..."
Reply: This thread was begun in the wake of YET ANOTHER act of terrorism inspired by Islam. -- Which followed quite quickly the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris. Right now, in Israel, knife attacks by Islamic terrorists occur frequently. A knife attack occured in London -- again Islamic terrorism. In 2013, a British soldier, Lee Rigby, was hacked to death by a machete, in London -- another victim of Islamic terrorism.
The Boston Marathon bombers --- bombs, not knives--- again Islamic terrorism. Ditto the London subway bombing and the Madrid train bombings -- again, neither guns, nor knives, but bombs. We have a President -- Hussein Obama and his partisan allies, who refuses to put us on a war footing against those who seek our demise. Instead, his natural reflex is to gut the 2nd Amendment. Hell no!
The obvious common thread is not guns, but Islam -- not that the perpetrators just happen to be Muslim, but that Islam is the motivation of these acts of mayhem. It occurs to me, that if we (the USA, but also the world) were being plagued by constant terrorism by a adherents of Satanism, rather than Islam, there would be much less "understanding" by Obama and the Dems. But why should it matter if the terrorists are motivated by Satanism or Islam ---- the trail of dead bodies, the victims of the terrorism is still as bloody, and growing every day. Reality is not pretty. But acknowledging the reality of Islam, rather deluding ourselves about its nature is necessary for our collective survival.
In 1920's & 30's Chicago (and elsewhere), the nation was beset by the rise of mob organizations (Al Capone, etc.). The nation then understood the problem was not "guns", it was "the Mob". The Mob was bigger than the trigger-men. It encompassed all those who were organized and participated in its endeavors (drugs, rackets, prostitution, etc).
If the statist do-gooders are insistent on gutting Constitutional rights -- those efforts would best be directed at curtailing, er, "regulating" certain religions. After all, as the gun-control crowd always say, no right is absolute -- so target the rights curtailment to where the problem is: Islam is a criminal, terrorist enterprise. National policy should address the criminal enterprise that is Islam.
In 1920's & 30's Chicago (and elsewhere), the nation was beset by the rise of mob organizations (Al Capone, etc.). The nation then understood the problem was not "guns", it was "the Mob". The Mob was bigger than the trigger-men. It encompassed all those who were organized and participated in its endeavors (drugs, rackets, prostitution, etc).
We all view history through our own lenses. Here's a different snapshot of the same era:
1934
Spurred by the bloody “Tommy gun” era ushered in by Al Capone, John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, Pretty Boy Floyd, and Bonnie and Clyde, seen at right, President Franklin D. Roosevelt mounts a “New Deal for Crime.” One part of it is the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal gun-control law, which levies a restrictive $200 tax on the manufacture or sale of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. All sales were to be recorded in a national registry.
If the statist do-gooders are insistent on stripping Constitutional rights -- those efforts would best be directed at curtailing, er, "regulating" certain religions. After all, as the gun-control crowd always say, no right is absolute -- so target the rights curtailment to where the problem is: Islam is a criminal, terrorist enterprise. National policy should address the criminal enterprise that is Islam.
Been there, done that. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith (peyote may not be used for religious purposes). I find the particular page linked to clear and short. It includes part of O'Connor's concurrence - " freedom to act, unlike the freedom to believe, cannot be absolute". Your blanket indictment of Islam is overly broad - it goes against the freedom to believe. I may worship guns; that may not be silenced, though that does not give me an unfettered (unregulated) right to amass an armory.
First, a process is in place to define Constitutional rights. It's called the Judiciary. That's not my interpretation, whim or wish. That's the Constitution.
Second, The Constitution in its brilliance allows for its own change through the democratic process (Article V). An example of such change would be the 19th Ammendment which in 1920 granted women the right to vote.
I can't speak for the others here, but I'd only support new laws/regulations that were Constitutional (either upheld by the Supreme Court or ennacted by Constitutional Ammendment.)
So where's the beef Edmund? Who here is advocating gutting your Constitutional rights? Specifics?
@MSF: "Just remember, Jesus saves, but George [Baby Face] Nelson withdraws! :https://youtube.com/watch?v=akvj7IraD3s If only everyone had a tommy gun like George Baby Face Nelson, the world would be a much safer happier place. In fact, given the reductio ad absurdum nature to the argument that because the Second Amendment doesn't specify what type of arms American citizens can bear and therefore assault weapons are OK, why stop there? Why shouldn't every American be entitled to having a nuclear warhead in their backyard, just in case the government or their pesky neighbors get out of line: "Hey stop letting your pug poop on my lawn--kaboom!" We live in a nation of Yosemite Sams.
statist A statist is a man who believes that some men have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder others. To be put into practice, this belief has to be implemented by the political doctrine that the government—the state—has the right to initiate the use of physical force against its citizens. do-gooder a well-meaning but unrealistic or interfering philanthropist or reformer.
statist do-gooder; Duh???
Well, keeping in-genre. "I can't think about that right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think about that tomorrow."
>> light the light and hold up the mirror so you can see who you are.
Now *that* is amusing.
It is a continuum and some are stupidly arguing absolutes. Of course there will be knives, duh. No one is handwaving about ending aggression. The point is to do something meaningful about weapons with no purpose whatsoever other than the speedy murder of numerous persons. All the arguments against that are the worst sort of thrown sand.
That's it is stupid to argue absolutes. Good on you for stating the obvious.
@MSF: "Just remember, Jesus saves, but George [Baby Face] Nelson withdraws! :https://youtube.com/watch?v=akvj7IraD3s If only everyone had a tommy gun like George Baby Face Nelson, the world would be a much safer happier place. In fact, given the reductio ad absurdum nature to the argument that because the Second Amendment doesn't specify what type of arms American citizens can bear and therefore assault weapons are OK, why stop there? Why shouldn't every American be entitled to having a nuclear warhead in their backyard, just in case the government or their pesky neighbors get out of line: "Hey stop letting your pug poop on my lawn--kaboom!" We live in a nation of Yosemite Sams.
US citizens are not allowed to new own automatic rifles manufactured before 1986. The ones manufactured before then are extremely expensive, hard to find, and require a tax stamp to buy.
Notice it is the woman picking up the gun? Also notice in news reports that it was the wife in San Berdalino that is thought to radicalized the husband ...mmm... maybe women or marriage should be outlawed.
I'm sure that the NRA and hate radio is glad that the terrorist attack on the Planned Parenthood clinic is off the front pages, and the focus returns to where it needs to be...on Muslims.
The terrorists are spreading chaos in the ME from which they will later take over.
They are setting up communities in Europe and the USA with the 'refugees' from which they will hide their fighters, provide support and gain political power and support.
The west as demonstrated in this thread does not have the will to win, do not know how the terrorist are winning and how they plan to win.
Once all the guns are taken away, the same people here WILL support giving up of other rights when that does not work ... but it will be too late by then.
Guns are not the issue. It is the shinny object that distract people from the core issues. It gives them a false sense of security and make them feel like they are doing something.
Yea, Dex, In fact I've been talking to my husband about all this male violence. I contend that the world would be better off without men. I am starting a campaign to arm every woman in America in order to kill off the men thus saving the country from all this violence that men can't seem to evolve out of.
Yea, Dex, In fact I've been talking to my husband about all this male violence. I contend that the world would be better off without men. I am starting a campaign to arm every woman in America in order to kill off the men thus saving the country from all this violence that men can't seem to evolve out of.
With artificial insemination women don't need men anyway. They just need to keep a few around to be sperm donors.
But women are part of the problem too - they date and marry men, encouraging them.
Yes, pesticide and roaches do bring up similar memories of continuous battles to this ex-Mississippi girl. To the original question - one is left thinking that at least the no-fly keeps automatic weapons sold to people on the list from getting past the boarding gate. Wait, what???? Stick-em-up.
Comments
The only thing more objectionable I've heard recently is Trumps desire to kill the families of any terrorist. I'm afraid to even ask you of your opinion on that "solution".
It looks like you are firmly against any and all restrictions of assault weapons.
Do you really think getting rid of one tool will change anything? Knives, suicide vests, poison, viruses, radiation are all available.
You say "terrorist hate us for our freedoms". That is the old ways of thinking. They want us out of their area of the world. They want their people in western Europe and many other places in the world.
Stop the idea and you stop the killing. You want the security you seek admit what I said is true but in the end you will have neither security or freedom - and you deserve neither. People who propose the taking away of guns just want to pain to go away and they think that is the answer.
"The people using the guns improperly are influenced by and/or instructed by those who persuade them to or tell them to use the guns improperly. That is why we need limitations on free speech and restrictions on the means of communication of such improper speech e.g. social media. That is why we also need suspension of some civil liberties for those people. You can not do one without the other if you want to be successful. "
The terrorists are winning and they will win because they will do ALL that is needed to win. While those who want to take away guns are trying to do as little as possible.
You say the terrorists are winning, and will win...and we must abandon certain Constitutional rights and privileges in order to combat them.
In reality, they aren't winning. Not by any stretch of the imagination, or any measurement. Your rhetoric is one of persistent fear and loathing, one we have become all too familiar with recently. And actually, THAT is something we need to also confront and eliminate.
We can combat the terrorists with reasonable means...and will do so.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/how-a-conservative-led-australia-ended-mass-killings/ar-AAg1Gfh
I thought we were discussing the accessibility of assault weapons specifically. This discussion is going off the rails.
As often happens when the possibility of limiting assault weapons comes up.
>>>We aren't on a train.
Very profound....I'm at a loss for words right now. I need to ponder this a while
-
I for one am tired of hearing that NRA nonsense. By that argument than nothing should ever be regulated in a free society, for criminals will always find a way to get their hands on drugs, child pornography, dangerous automobiles, etc. etc. Fact is we do regulate many other things with some measure of success.
I'm sure MJG is aware from news reports that the weapons used in the California tragedy were in fact purchased legally (by a friend of the male suspect).
(Edit: Omitted last sentence.)
Now *that* is amusing.
It is a continuum and some are stupidly arguing absolutes. Of course there will be knives, duh. No one is handwaving about ending aggression. The point is to do something meaningful about weapons with no purpose whatsoever other than the speedy murder of numerous persons. All the arguments against that are the worst sort of thrown sand.
Reply: This thread was begun in the wake of YET ANOTHER act of terrorism inspired by Islam. -- Which followed quite quickly the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris. Right now, in Israel, knife attacks by Islamic terrorists occur frequently. A knife attack occured in London -- again Islamic terrorism. In 2013, a British soldier, Lee Rigby, was hacked to death by a machete, in London -- another victim of Islamic terrorism.
The Boston Marathon bombers --- bombs, not knives--- again Islamic terrorism. Ditto the London subway bombing and the Madrid train bombings -- again, neither guns, nor knives, but bombs. We have a President -- Hussein Obama and his partisan allies, who refuses to put us on a war footing against those who seek our demise. Instead, his natural reflex is to gut the 2nd Amendment. Hell no!
The obvious common thread is not guns, but Islam -- not that the perpetrators just happen to be Muslim, but that Islam is the motivation of these acts of mayhem. It occurs to me, that if we (the USA, but also the world) were being plagued by constant terrorism by a adherents of Satanism, rather than Islam, there would be much less "understanding" by Obama and the Dems. But why should it matter if the terrorists are motivated by Satanism or Islam ---- the trail of dead bodies, the victims of the terrorism is still as bloody, and growing every day. Reality is not pretty. But acknowledging the reality of Islam, rather deluding ourselves about its nature is necessary for our collective survival.
In 1920's & 30's Chicago (and elsewhere), the nation was beset by the rise of mob organizations (Al Capone, etc.). The nation then understood the problem was not "guns", it was "the Mob". The Mob was bigger than the trigger-men. It encompassed all those who were organized and participated in its endeavors (drugs, rackets, prostitution, etc).
If the statist do-gooders are insistent on gutting Constitutional rights -- those efforts would best be directed at curtailing, er, "regulating" certain religions. After all, as the gun-control crowd always say, no right is absolute -- so target the rights curtailment to where the problem is: Islam is a criminal, terrorist enterprise. National policy should address the criminal enterprise that is Islam.
"gutting Constitutional rights"?
First, a process is in place to define Constitutional rights. It's called the Judiciary. That's not my interpretation, whim or wish. That's the Constitution.
Second, The Constitution in its brilliance allows for its own change through the democratic process (Article V). An example of such change would be the 19th Ammendment which in 1920 granted women the right to vote.
I can't speak for the others here, but I'd only support new laws/regulations that were Constitutional (either upheld by the Supreme Court or ennacted by Constitutional Ammendment.)
So where's the beef Edmund? Who here is advocating gutting your Constitutional rights? Specifics?
If only everyone had a tommy gun like George Baby Face Nelson, the world would be a much safer happier place. In fact, given the reductio ad absurdum nature to the argument that because the Second Amendment doesn't specify what type of arms American citizens can bear and therefore assault weapons are OK, why stop there? Why shouldn't every American be entitled to having a nuclear warhead in their backyard, just in case the government or their pesky neighbors get out of line: "Hey stop letting your pug poop on my lawn--kaboom!" We live in a nation of Yosemite Sams.
Often a point can be made through logical extension to the point of absurdity as you have done.
(Reductio Ad Absurdum)
On a similar note, it's been said that if everyone were armed all the time this s*** couldn't happen.
Seating capacity at the Paris club was 1500. Just imagine 1500 guns going off all at once. The terrorists wouldn't have had a chance!
Line of the day, straight from talk radio
>> not guns, but Islam
There's a broad brush.
Anyway, it did start out with a subject hed about assault weapons.
A statist is a man who believes that some men have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder others. To be put into practice, this belief has to be implemented by the political doctrine that the government—the state—has the right to initiate the use of physical force against its citizens.
do-gooder
a well-meaning but unrealistic or interfering philanthropist or reformer.
statist do-gooder; Duh???
Well, keeping in-genre. "I can't think about that right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think about that tomorrow."
Cover of this week's The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine
Knowledge ... try it, you might like it.
Bin Laden’s war against the U.S. economy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/bin-ladens-war-against-the-us-economy/2011/04/27/AFDOPjfF_blog.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/
The terrorists are spreading chaos in the ME from which they will later take over.
They are setting up communities in Europe and the USA with the 'refugees' from which they will hide their fighters, provide support and gain political power and support.
The west as demonstrated in this thread does not have the will to win, do not know how the terrorist are winning and how they plan to win.
Once all the guns are taken away, the same people here WILL support giving up of other rights when that does not work ... but it will be too late by then.
Guns are not the issue. It is the shinny object that distract people from the core issues. It gives them a false sense of security and make them feel like they are doing something.
But women are part of the problem too - they date and marry men, encouraging them.