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.
Wait, what? We should go to war in the ME to win? Seriously? Oh, please tell how! Win what? Exterminate all the brutes? First, why; is it our area of the world? More important, we did that, lost that, endured, that, with thousands of kids killed and maimed. Do you yourself know any ME vets of the last 25y? What do they think? Are you volunteering? Are you draftable if there were a draft? Do you have kids? Give your details. Big invasion, troops on ground, whose? Where? Win hearts and minds of locals? This is wild. Good thing we have prudent and patient grownups in charge of foreign policy.
It's fascinating to observe the mental contortions required to conclude that the framers of our Constitution clearly anticipated the development of high powered rapid-repeating weapons of mass destruction, and approved, 200 years in advance, the idea that anyone, even if believed by federal security agencies to be potential enemies of the United States, has an inalienable right to obtain and possess such weaponry.
By mental magic they transfer the rights and obligations of a "well-ordered militia" to one and all, regardless of whether they are mentally incompetent or criminally inclined, or whether their potential threat to America is such that they are not allowed entry to our air transport system.
With a homegrown crew like this we have no need of foreign enemies determined to undermine our country... we're obviously quite capable of doing it to ourselves. The elimination of common sense has been their first victory.
As a parent, future grandparent AND a conservative, it's difficult for me to understand why anyone, other than law enforcement and the military, needs an assault weapon, other than to kill people. I realize that many people like to target practice and hunt, but they don't do that with an assault weapon. I don't own any firearms, but it's getting to the point where I'm beginning to think I need to buy one just to have a chance.
? They said it. I did not report they weren't suspended. They did say it. Is this like a Fox definition of 'fair', as in 'fair and balanced'? Concur in all the rest of your feelings. Recall getting my NRA card in the 1950s.
@davidrmoran Yes, they said it...and yes, they were suspended. Some on the board might not know that if they don't watch Fox News like you
BTW, I have two sons...one is a conservative, one is a lib....I mean "progressive"...they BOTH like to target shoot and neither owns an assault weapon.
However, I just don't think there is a realistic solution to this problem. Even if the supply was cut off immediately, how many are already out there? How are you going to take them away from the people who own them? Sorry for being so pessimistic, but if someone is hell-bent on killing others, I don't think they will turn in their assault weapon...even if you ask them politely. Maybe cash would work...or maybe it would just incentivize people to buy more.
@little5bee, We could control gun violence by regulating the bullets instead of the guns. Click here: huffingtonpost.com/sarah-oleary/bullet-regulation_b_2332996.html Or as Chris Rock put it in a more comical vein: “You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders. Yeah! Every time somebody get shut we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... S__t, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’ And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your f___ing head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’ So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.”
Not only are we on the same page on this issue, we are on the same sentence. I'm not sure if that gives you comfort or causes you to pause and reconsider?
We see and hear the same facts but our interpretations often diverge. That's not surprising since our brains do the data analyses, and that's dominated by learning experiences. As you know, that diversity of assessment and opinion makes a vibrant marketplace.
This exchange has had many tortured posts. I tried to add a little humor with my Patton parody post. I suspect I failed. What did you think of it?
It's fascinating to observe the mental contortions required to conclude that the framers of our Constitution clearly anticipated the development of high powered rapid-repeating weapons of mass destruction, and approved, 200 years in advance, the idea that anyone, even if believed by federal security agencies to be potential enemies of the United States, has an inalienable right to obtain and possess such weaponry.
Considering some of the postings however, their obvious grounding rationalization certainly does rely upon a premise that "the framers of our Constitution clearly anticipated the development of high powered rapid-repeating weapons of mass destruction, and approved, 200 years in advance, the idea that anyone... has an inalienable right to obtain and possess such weaponry."
They obviously attempt to transform the Second Amendment technology of a single-shot musket to equate with high powered rapid-repeating weapons of mass destruction, and their entire series of arguments fails without that premise.
The witless suggestions that we should voluntarily give up hard-won freedom so as to advance the fight against those who would deny us that very same freedom are ludicrous; the related descent into religious and racial prejudice by a few posts is contemptible and unworthy of response.
Again, with a homegrown crew like this we have no need of foreign enemies determined to undermine our liberty... we're obviously quite capable of doing it to ourselves. The elimination of common sense has been your first victory.
They obviously attempt to transform the Second Amendment technology of a single-shot musket to equate with high powered rapid-repeating weapons of mass destruction, and their entire series of arguments fails without that premise.
Obviously that is a specious argument easily defeated.
Freedom of the press - at the time the constitution was written it was hand powered printing presses. Today's radio, TV, internet 'press' was not envisioned by the writers of the Bill of Rights. Therefor, today's radio, TV, internet 'press' is not covered by the Bill of Rights.
Dex: "shining light into the darkness of ignorance" ... again.
I understand just fine Dex, but I do make it a practice not to follow sheep over the cliff. You know, with your deep knowledge, sense of history, impeccable grammar and amazing ability to distort logic you should be able to land a part-time job in commercial TV! Maybe try starting with Fox.
Above, you sarcastically suggested to Reids that he had set himself up as some sort of self-appointed judge: "I guess non (sic) of those things are controversial because you are the person who determines what is normal and essential." "What would you say if someone else determines what is normal and essential"
Which was followed shortly by another of your prescriptions for the freedoms of our country: "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."
Thereby appointing yourself as the arbiter of our freedom. How interesting.
With respect to that First Amendment freedom which you specifically wish to restrict, the amazing advance in technology does not change the end effect of the mechanism, which is simply to allow communication with a large number of people.
You would, by your peculiarly perverted argument, equate that with an advance in technology which now allows one to kill a large number of people, rather than the very limited damage that a single-shot musket could accomplish.
That is the quintessence of a false equivalency.
Let me modify a previous observation: With homegrown folks like you we have no need of foreign enemies determined to undermine our liberty... we're obviously quite capable of doing it to ourselves. The elimination of common sense has been your first victory. And that is sad.
With respect to that First Amendment freedom which you specifically wish to restrict, the amazing advance in technology does not change the end effect of the mechanism, which is simply to allow communication with a large number of people.
With respect to that Second Amendment freedom which you specifically wish to restrict, the amazing advance in technology does not change the end effect of the mechanism, which is simply to allow the firing of bullets at a faster rate.
I thought you were going to talk about false equivocating.
"You would, by your peculiarly perverted argument, equate that with an advance in technology which now allows the firing of bullets at a faster rate, thereby killing a large number of people, rather than the very limited damage that a single-shot musket could accomplish."
Killing and communicating- all the same to guys like you. Interesting that you have no response regarding your self-appointed restrictions on lots of our other constitutional liberties... just the right to kill lots of innocent people. But then, you're special.
"You would, by your peculiarly perverted argument, equate that with an advance in technology which now allows the firing of bullets at a faster rate, thereby killing a large number of people, rather than the very limited damage that a single-shot musket could accomplish."
"You would, by your peculiarly perverted argument, equate that with an advance in technology which now allows the firing of bullets at a faster rate, thereby defending and saving lives rather than the very limited ability that a single-shot musket could accomplish."
So, I guess you are OK that the freedom of the press only applies to hand operated printing machines. Good idea!
With homegrown folks like you we have no need of foreign enemies determined to undermine our liberty... we're obviously quite capable of doing it to ourselves. The elimination of common sense has been your first victory. And that is sad.
They obviously attempt to transform the Second Amendment technology of a single-shot musket to equate with high powered rapid-repeating weapons of mass destruction, and their entire series of arguments fails without that premise.
Obviously that is a specious argument easily defeated.
Freedom of the press - at the time the constitution was written it was hand powered printing presses. Today's radio, TV, internet 'press' was not envisioned by the writers of the Bill of Rights. Therefor, today's radio, TV, internet 'press' is not covered by the Bill of Rights.
Dex: "shining light into the darkness of ignorance" ... again.
Comments
This is wild. Good thing we have prudent and patient grownups in charge of foreign policy.
By mental magic they transfer the rights and obligations of a "well-ordered militia" to one and all, regardless of whether they are mentally incompetent or criminally inclined, or whether their potential threat to America is such that they are not allowed entry to our air transport system.
With a homegrown crew like this we have no need of foreign enemies determined to undermine our country... we're obviously quite capable of doing it to ourselves. The elimination of common sense has been their first victory.
+1
See
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/isil-escalation-pentagon-terrorism-216514
Fox commentators said PotUS is a 'total pussy' and does not 'give a shit' about terrorism, so there is that. Kurtz triumphant, 116y later !
And they were suspended. Be fair, @davidrmoran.
As a parent, future grandparent AND a conservative, it's difficult for me to understand why anyone, other than law enforcement and the military, needs an assault weapon, other than to kill people. I realize that many people like to target practice and hunt, but they don't do that with an assault weapon. I don't own any firearms, but it's getting to the point where I'm beginning to think I need to buy one just to have a chance.
Concur in all the rest of your feelings. Recall getting my NRA card in the 1950s.
BTW, I have two sons...one is a conservative, one is a lib....I mean "progressive"...they BOTH like to target shoot and neither owns an assault weapon.
However, I just don't think there is a realistic solution to this problem. Even if the supply was cut off immediately, how many are already out there? How are you going to take them away from the people who own them? Sorry for being so pessimistic, but if someone is hell-bent on killing others, I don't think they will turn in their assault weapon...even if you ask them politely. Maybe cash would work...or maybe it would just incentivize people to buy more.
We could control gun violence by regulating the bullets instead of the guns. Click here: huffingtonpost.com/sarah-oleary/bullet-regulation_b_2332996.html
Or as Chris Rock put it in a more comical vein:
“You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody get shut we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... S__t, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your f___ing head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.”
Not only are we on the same page on this issue, we are on the same sentence. I'm not sure if that gives you comfort or causes you to pause and reconsider?
We see and hear the same facts but our interpretations often diverge. That's not surprising since our brains do the data analyses, and that's dominated by learning experiences. As you know, that diversity of assessment and opinion makes a vibrant marketplace.
This exchange has had many tortured posts. I tried to add a little humor with my Patton parody post. I suspect I failed. What did you think of it?
Best Wishes.
Considering some of the postings however, their obvious grounding rationalization certainly does rely upon a premise that "the framers of our Constitution clearly anticipated the development of high powered rapid-repeating weapons of mass destruction, and approved, 200 years in advance, the idea that anyone... has an inalienable right to obtain and possess such weaponry."
They obviously attempt to transform the Second Amendment technology of a single-shot musket to equate with high powered rapid-repeating weapons of mass destruction, and their entire series of arguments fails without that premise.
The witless suggestions that we should voluntarily give up hard-won freedom so as to advance the fight against those who would deny us that very same freedom are ludicrous; the related descent into religious and racial prejudice by a few posts is contemptible and unworthy of response.
Again, with a homegrown crew like this we have no need of foreign enemies determined to undermine our liberty... we're obviously quite capable of doing it to ourselves. The elimination of common sense has been your first victory.
Freedom of the press - at the time the constitution was written it was hand powered printing presses. Today's radio, TV, internet 'press' was not envisioned by the writers of the Bill of Rights. Therefor, today's radio, TV, internet 'press' is not covered by the Bill of Rights.
Dex: "shining light into the darkness of ignorance" ... again.
And that you laugh only shows you do not or can not understand what was written - not laughable but sad.
In passing, to quote from above:
"I do not demean posters."
"Now *that*'s also funny."
Who wrote "Now *that*'s also funny." and what relavance does it have.
But, please, answer the 'false equivalency' question first. We all want to read your explanation. This should be good.
"I guess non (sic) of those things are controversial because you are the person who determines what is normal and essential." "What would you say if someone else determines what is normal and essential"
Which was followed shortly by another of your prescriptions for the freedoms of our country:
"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."
Thereby appointing yourself as the arbiter of our freedom. How interesting.
With respect to that First Amendment freedom which you specifically wish to restrict, the amazing advance in technology does not change the end effect of the mechanism, which is simply to allow communication with a large number of people.
You would, by your peculiarly perverted argument, equate that with an advance in technology which now allows one to kill a large number of people, rather than the very limited damage that a single-shot musket could accomplish.
That is the quintessence of a false equivalency.
Let me modify a previous observation: With homegrown folks like you we have no need of foreign enemies determined to undermine our liberty... we're obviously quite capable of doing it to ourselves. The elimination of common sense has been your first victory. And that is sad.
I thought you were going to talk about false equivocating.
"You would, by your peculiarly perverted argument, equate that with an advance in technology which now allows the firing of bullets at a faster rate, thereby killing a large number of people, rather than the very limited damage that a single-shot musket could accomplish."
Killing and communicating- all the same to guys like you. Interesting that you have no response regarding your self-appointed restrictions on lots of our other constitutional liberties... just the right to kill lots of innocent people. But then, you're special.
So, I guess you are OK that the freedom of the press only applies to hand operated printing machines. Good idea!
But I repeat myself. No more, clown.
Oh, and I do expect a sarcastic reply even to this. He just can't help himself. Go ahead Dex___ Have the last word.
Think about it overnight.
I'll see what you wrote then.
Sweet dreams.
very good, must remember
Give it another try.