Gun control inaction.

[dude1394]

From a guy in Florida :

My neighbor is a "lefty" of sorts (Obama bumper stickers, gung-ho
Socialized medicine, "guns should be banned", etc.). So last spring
I put this sign up in my yard after one of his anti-gun rants at a neighborhood
party.

The sign wasn't up more than an hour before he called the police and wanted them to make me
Take down the sign. Fortunately, the officer politely informed him that it was not their job to take
Such action without a court order and that he had to file a complaint "downtown" first, which would
Be reviewed by the city attorney to see if it violated any city, county, or state ordinances, which
If there was a violation a court order would be sent to the offending party (me) to "remove the
Sign in seven days."

After several weeks he was informed that the sign was legal (by a quarter of an inch) and there
Was nothing the city could do, which obviously made him madder.

I tried to smooth things over by inviting him to go shooting with me and my friendsat the hunt club but
That seemed to make him even more angry.
I am at a loss how to reconcile our long relationship (notice I did not say friendship), any suggestions
Would be welcome.

[chumdawg]

Is that a poem the guy wrote?

[dude1394]

Beats me...just another unfunny post.

[Flacolaco]

That would be pretty funny if it weren't a hack ass photoshop job.

[dude1394]

It's still funny...what do you have against hack-ass photoshop jobs?

[chumdawg]

Oh, you meant it WAS supposed to be funny?

[Usually Lurkin]

It is kinda funny

[dude1394]

It was funny.

[mcsluggo]

No, really its not. Perhaps you mean "ironic" again? It is just exactly as funny as all the clever leftist bumper stickers you would see at a Cindy Shehan rally.... which is to say about as funny as an ass boil. Basically... this is republican emo.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Basically... this is republican emo.

I'm going to steal the sh!t out of that one...


(it could make a clever bumper sticker to sell to those liberals)

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

No, really its not. Perhaps you mean "ironic" again? It is just exactly as funny as all the clever leftist bumper stickers you would see at a Cindy Shehan rally.... which is to say about as funny as an ass boil. Basically... this is republican emo.

You must spread some Reputation....

You've gotta love the quivering, polarized masses. It's funny (in an ironic and somewhat tragic way) that the most polarized are usually the least equipped to discern that they are being played. Of course, they actually want the world to be as simplistic and easy as possible for their own lack of control over their consciousness. It's one highly destructive feedback loop.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

You must spread some Reputation....

You've gotta love the quivering, polarized masses. It's funny (in an ironic and somewhat tragic way) that the most polarized are usually the least equipped to discern that they are being played. Of course, they actually want the world to be as simplistic and easy as possible for their own lack of control over their consciousness. It's one highly destructive feedback loop.

I think it is funny for a different reason.

Too many hypocrites in America:

They are willing to stand behind their 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech -- as long as it doesn't cost them anything, but get all pissed off when someone else stands behind their 1st Amendment right. Of course they don't want to stand behind the second Amendment because the cowards would have to actually admit that the government is "by the people and of the people and supposedly FOR the people" and each individual is responsible for his or her own actions -- not the invisible "Government" who will save them from "everything - most importantly their own screwups".

Unfortunately Gun control really comes down to one thing -- who is responsible. I think I am responsible for the health and well being of my family and liberals think the Government is -- that way they have someone else to blame when something happens. It all comes down to lack of responsibility - which leads to hypocrisy.

Personally I don't need the government to provide healthcare, retirement, or anything else --- except what it was designed for "control of the military to keep other countries from deciding to take over". Don't get me wrong, I like the benefits of clean water, good food, etc that are federally programmed right now, but I believe that the state is the one that should be running it.

I will say this though Rib -- the masses are polarizing.

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I think it is funny for a different reason.

Too many hypocrites in America:

They are willing to stand behind their 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech -- as long as it doesn't cost them anything, but get all pissed off when someone else stands behind their 1st Amendment right. Of course they don't want to stand behind the second Amendment because the cowards would have to actually admit that the government is "by the people and of the people and supposedly FOR the people" and each individual is responsible for his or her own actions -- not the invisible "Government" who will save them from "everything - most importantly their own screwups".

Unfortunately Gun control really comes down to one thing -- who is responsible. I think I am responsible for the health and well being of my family and liberals think the Government is -- that way they have someone else to blame when something happens. It all comes down to lack of responsibility - which leads to hypocrisy.

Personally I don't need the government to provide healthcare, retirement, or anything else --- except what it was designed for "control of the military to keep other countries from deciding to take over". Don't get me wrong, I like the benefits of clean water, good food, etc that are federally programmed right now, but I believe that the state is the one that should be running it.

I will say this though Rib -- the masses are polarizing.

I can understand where you are coming from. I used to wax poetic on our "rights" until I discovered that there really aren't any; there are merely privileges. The same elements of control present today to those who have a discerning eye were present in the formation of the Republic. Our tax dollars are funneled to European banking interests, the policies of this government are formed outside of the political process, and the media who is supposedly here to illuminate the spectacle is now completely controlled by 6 corporate entities which engage in programming that appeals to the least conscious amongst us. They, in turn, act as replicants, spewing forth the memes and ideas of someone other than themselves.

The American political system is here for entertainment purposes, as it is with any representative form of government. How can one decry said system when the very act of participating in it is, by definition, an act of handing authority over to someone else?

Government appeals to man's base fears. And in so doing, it is imbued with flaws on a collective level. We want government to stop people from doing things that challenge our worldview, regardless of how limiting it may be.

Obama was being groomed for his current position years ago, by the same people who groomed Bush. The owners of this country understand the human psyche and wait until they see which way the overall sentiment of the proles is blowing, and then insert someone who can appeal to the fears of the majority, while still striking an image of control and power. It tends to be cyclical. We get someone who demonizes intellectuals when the owners of this country need treasure abroad, and we get someone who champions them when we need to recover from the cost of the previous war. At all times, however, a polarity is needed. If it weren't there, people might actually have to go about making decisions for themselves and be accountable for their actions. They might actually realize that we are all being screwed and that the political process is one big circle-jerk.

When I see someone firmly invested in the political dialectic, it's not funny to me. It's sad. And in the context of the OP's persona here, it's very sad.

I wasn't born needing a right to grant me the ability to speak freely. The government isn't designed to protect you from foreign invasion, it's designed to protect the owners from you and to convince you that their interests are your interests through coercion. That should be evident to most people nowadays, but apparently tossing around a few narratives and some iconography convinces us otherwise. Clean water is the product of city governments. Clean food can be (and is) grown in my backyard. You don't need a gargantuan State government apparatus to provide those things for you. I would recommended seizing upon your current angst towards Statism and holding onto those objections to it even when a more appealing sock puppet is offered up for your representation.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

II used to wax poetic on our "rights" until I discovered that there really aren't any; there are merely privileges. .

It's all about how you frame it for yourself. You always have the opportunity to influence them to be more "rights-like" or more "privilege-like." Heck if you try hard enough you can make them be "violation-like." Whatever you want them to be should fuel your perspective, and that should fuel your actions.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

<snip>
At all times, however, a polarity is needed. If it weren't there, people might actually have to go about making decisions for themselves and be accountable for their actions. They might actually realize that we are all being screwed and that the political process is one big circle-jerk.
<snip>

I wish I could give you more rep, just for the part above. (I'll have to spread some around I guess)

I tend to agree with most of what you wrote, but the part above especially.

-- Sometimes I just wish people would think for themselves and be able to voice their opinions without it being some sheeple type response from one form or another of the media. I think people are more and more allowing themselves to be controlled - instead of using their brains.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Unfortunately Gun control really comes down to one thing -- who is responsible. I think I am responsible for the health and well being of my family and liberals think the Government is -- that way they have someone else to blame when something happens. It all comes down to lack of responsibility - which leads to hypocrisy.

Um...that's an interesting interpretation of their motives. I thought gun control advocates seek to make our society a safer place to live.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Um...that's an interesting interpretation of their motives. I thought gun control advocates seek to make our society a safer place to live.

How can it be safer, if you are removing the ability of the law abiding person to be able to defend themselves?

You aren't removing the ability of the law breaker, as they are breaking the law either way.

You are simply trying to relieve fear by having a place to put the blame -- that is not on oneself when things happen.

-------------------------------------------------
Does outlawing drugs mean drugs are unavailable? or that we have a place to put the blame when something happens?

[Usually Lurkin]

- - but it actually is funny. If Hank Hill or Cletus the slack jawed yokel or some other tv character were to put this sign up or say something like it, I'd laugh. It's easily as funny as those "This house patrolled by shotgun 3 days a week, you guess the days" signs that you really do see. It's funny. If you don't think it's funny, it's because you've got a political bias (or anti-bias) that's getting in the way.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

- - but it actually is funny. If Hank Hill or Cletus the slack jawed yokel or some other tv character were to put this sign up or say something like it, I'd laugh. It's easily as funny as those "This house patrolled by shotgun 3 days a week, you guess the days" signs that you really do see. It's funny. If you don't think it's funny, it's because you've got a political bias (or anti-bias) that's getting in the way.

I agree totally... it IS easily as funny as the others signs you talk about, and also easily as funny as "You Can't Hug With Nuclear Arms" or "God Loves Everyone, Even Republicans" ... a laugh riot.

The POINT of these things isn't to be funny--- The point is to make a political statement. If you like the statement, fine--- you are more likely to tolerate (or even enjoy) the "joke". But they aren't by any stretch of the imagination "funny".








now a drunk schmuck stepping on a rake and getting smacked in the nuts and falling into a cactus patch... THAT is funny.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I agree totally... it IS easily as funny as the others signs you talk about, and also easily as funny as "You Can't Hug With Nuclear Arms" or "God Loves Everyone, Even Republicans" ... a laugh riot.

I think funnier than those. Less funny than the SNL Sarah Palin skits. Maybe as funny as the "my kid can beat up your honor student" bumper stickers, or about as funny as the "Teabonics" pictures that are out there.

The POINT of these things isn't to be funny--- The point is to make a political statement. If you like the statement, fine--- you are more likely to tolerate (or even enjoy) the "joke". But they aren't by any stretch of the imagination "funny".

Well, you are wrong. Political humor has been around a long, long time because much of it is simply funny. Some things are funny and political. And if you can remove your own bias, then you can have a good laugh (or at least a fair chuckle) at much of it.[/quote]

now a drunk schmuck stepping on a rake and getting smacked in the nuts and falling into a cactus patch... THAT is funny.

can't disagree there.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I think funnier than those. Less funny than the SNL Sarah Palin skits. Maybe as funny as the "my kid can beat up your honor student" bumper stickers, or about as funny as the "Teabonics" pictures that are out there.


Well, you are wrong. Political humor has been around a long, long time because much of it is simply funny. Some things are funny and political. And if you can remove your own bias, then you can have a good laugh (or at least a fair chuckle) at much of it.

I am not disagreeing that political humor can be hilarious. It can be. What I am saying is that political "humor" is an abused beast, and people often lob out items as "jokes" that wouldn't even make the high "Laffy-Taffy" standards. Furthermore, people at the edges (on all sides) of the political spectrum LIVE in this non-funny zone.

For instance: Lots of people make funny Bush or Obama jokes. "Jokes" from rabid foaming wild-eyed fanatical truthers on either side... not usually so funny. Similar not-funny "joking" behavior comes from bullies and a-holes of all stripes. If 5 steroid-laden guys are "making jokes" as they beat the shit out of the effeminate kid in the locker room... is it all "fun and games"?

I am going off on a tangent here, but my point is that political humor can be hilarious, but often instead of a "joke" it is just a bald political statement with a "ha ha" tagged on the end. That is fine, but if it ain't funny it an't funny. My more SPECIFIC point was that Dude's "jokes" ALWAYS fall into this category.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

If 5 steroid-laden guys are "making jokes" as they beat the shit out of the effeminate kid in the locker room... is it all "fun and games"?

Yes, but only if the Benny Hill theme song is playing in the background...


(you know you cracked a smile when you visualized it!)

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Similar not-funny "joking" behavior comes from bullies and a-holes of all stripes. If 5 steroid-laden guys are "making jokes" as they beat the shit out of the effeminate kid in the locker room... is it all "fun and games"?

a properly effeminate kid beating up 5 steroid-laden guys might have more potential.

I am going off on a tangent here, but my point is that political humor can be hilarious, but often instead of a "joke" it is just a bald political statement with a "ha ha" tagged on the end. That is fine, but if it ain't funny it an't funny. My more SPECIFIC point was that Dude's "jokes" ALWAYS fall into this category.

but this one was funny, in a "neighbor hoisted by own petard" sort of way. A rabid anti-Dude bias is as bad as any other political rabidity in this case.

[Underdog]

Adults acting like children = funny


(if you don't believe that, you're probably an Anti-Semite...)

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Adults acting like children = funny

Hey there...behave, will ya ?

[DirkFTW]

Some of you need to stop being such

[92bDad]

To everyone who is calling for stricter gun laws in light of the tragedy in Tucson, may I offer this little tidbit: If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. Remember: Hold the person accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize!!!

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

To everyone who is calling for stricter gun laws in light of the tragedy in Tucson, may I offer this little tidbit: If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. Remember: Hold the person accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize!!!

When people start having the same effects (as the AZ guy) with their bare hands, I will consider your argument (about "chosen method").

[dalger]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. Remember: Hold the person accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize!!!

Who would disagree with that? Not many people, I would guess, and even those would want criminals to be accountable for their actions. However, the conclusion that you might draw from this is not necessarily helping your safety. After all, guns are a different animal than pencils or spoons.

A study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 1998, notes that "during the one-year study period, 88 649 firearm deaths were reported. Overall firearm mortality rates are five to six times higher in HI (high-income) and UMI (upper-middle-income) countries in the Americas (12.72) than in Europe (2.17), or Oceania (2.57) and 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13). The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5."

Obviously, there are various aspects to consider when it comes to gun-related crimes, and it hardly happens in emotionally laden political and social debates. That said, I just find it hard to believe that unrestrictive gun laws make America a safer place. The notion of increased security thanks to the right to bear a gun may actually prove fallacious.

[Murphy3]

I'm definitely not a liberal, but I am all for stricter gun control. I am not saying at all that I do not believe that citizens should have some rights when it comes to owning firearms.... but I would like to see stricter control. How that occurs, I don't know...

[Kirobaito]

When a guy whose community college wouldn't let him back in because of his mental health issues can buy a semi-automatic 9mm Glock without any barrier and even an extended magazine (that has no viable purpose), then yes, there is a serious problem. I don't want to hear "criminals will find a way to get guns." Shouldn't we at least make them rather than basically handing them out?

[dalger]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

When a guy whose community college wouldn't let him back in because of his mental health issues can buy a semi-automatic 9mm Glock without any barrier and even an extended magazine (that has no viable purpose), then yes, there is a serious problem. I don't want to hear "criminals will find a way to get guns." Shouldn't we at least make them rather than basically handing them out?

That's probably the reason why many people outside of the United States are so baffled. As much as I could understand a person's interest in being able to protect themselves and their families--that right comes at a high price when it allows nutjobs like Loughner to easily buy a gun as well, without any background checks.

According to a Wikipedia article on the topic, "political scientist Earl R. Kruschke states, regarding the fully-automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, that 'approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime.'"

Apparently, licensed guns in the hands of responsible citizens aren't much of a problem. However, unrestrictive gun laws make it easy for irresponsible and/or criminal citizens to possess guns as well and cause a considerable firearm-related death rate in the United States that is much higher than in any other comparable country.

In other words, the good feeling of potentially being able to shoot a burglar or even murderer in your house on your own instead of relying on the police to arrive and do it for you doesn't seem to outweigh the negative consequences of unrestrictive gun laws. Additionally, even with stricter gun laws, responsible citizens could still own a gun while criminal and/or unreliable persons would not be allowed to have one. Thus, as soon as they got one, they could be charged with illegal gun possession.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dalger

According to a Wikipedia article on the topic, "political scientist Earl R. Kruschke states, regarding the fully-automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, that 'approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime.'".

This point completely and utterly fails to make the case that more restrictive licensing would serve any meaningful purpose.

Selection Bias, anyone?

All one can reasonably infer from the above fact is that people intent upon committing a crime with an automatic weapon are reluctant to rush to the BATF and register their names for future reference.

[CadBane]

Switzerland has the highest ratio of guns per person and they also have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world...

[AngieO41]

Originally Posted by CadBane

Switzerland has the highest ratio of guns per person and they also have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world...

Is Switzerland bordered by Mexico? Is it filled with gangs such as the Crips, Bloods and MS-13? Is it filled with psycho people like, Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris, Nadal Malik Hasan, Clay Duke, Seung-Hui Cho, and Jared Loughner? Probably not.

The US certainly cannot be a country where it allows more guns and less restrictions. Being from Ohio, most of the people I know own guns. I also know they aren't going to be used to kill people. People in Ohio like to hunt, target practice and even collect them as I'm sure they do in Texas. You really don't hear of these people going on mass killing sprees. The US needs to stop allowing those who are crazy have access to guns. There is no reason Loughner should have been able to go to Walmart and purchase ammunition. It shouldn't be so easy for people to purchase stuff like that. I believe that if you want to own a gun or guns, then you need to show that you know how to handle them, shoot them and are mentally capable to have them. They aren't toys. Wouldn't it make sense to have classes people go to learn about how to handle and use guns and then have them prove they know and understand this information before they are allowed to own one?

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but if this country was more stable then I could understand allowing more people to own guns.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by AngieO41

Is Switzerland bordered by Mexico? Is it filled with gangs such as the Crips, Bloods and MS-13? Is it filled with psycho people like, Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris, Nadal Malik Hasan, Clay Duke, Seung-Hui Cho, and Jared Loughner? Probably not.

The US certainly cannot be a country where it allows more guns and less restrictions. Being from Ohio, most of the people I know own guns. I also know they aren't going to be used to kill people. People in Ohio like to hunt, target practice and even collect them as I'm sure they do in Texas. You really don't hear of these people going on mass killing sprees. The US needs to stop allowing those who are crazy have access to guns. There is no reason Loughner should have been able to go to Walmart and purchase ammunition. It shouldn't be so easy for people to purchase stuff like that. I believe that if you want to own a gun or guns, then you need to show that you know how to handle them, shoot them and are mentally capable to have them. They aren't toys. Wouldn't it make sense to have classes people go to learn about how to handle and use guns and then have them prove they know and understand this information before they are allowed to own one?

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but if this country was more stable then I could understand allowing more people to own guns.

Well, deal with the instability. During alcohol prohibition you would've asked, is Switzerland bordered by Canada?
_____
And for the people who blame this massacre on an angered political climate: ever wondered why people loose any respect for life, when their government enslaves half a million people in prison for non-violent crimes, while it's killing thousands of people in the drug war and hundred of thousands of innocents in its endless wars around the world. Don't bullshit me with "angry rhetoric".

[AngieO41]

Originally Posted by Arne

Well, deal with the instability. During alcohol prohibition you would've asked, is Switzerland bordered by Canada?
_____
And for the people who blame this massacre on an angered political climate: ever wondered why people loose any respect for life, when their government enslaves half a million people in prison for non-violent crimes, while it's killing thousands of people in the drug war and hundred of thousands of innocents in its endless wars around the world. Don't bullshit me with "angry rhetoric".

I want to respond to this, but I'm not entirely sure how. All I said was crazy people shouldn't be able to go through a drive-thru and say, "I'd like the .38 special please!"

Also, I shouldn't have to deal with the instability, why don't people want to stand up for anything anymore? No wonder this country is going down the crapper.

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by CadBane

Switzerland has the highest ratio of guns per person and they also have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world...

Switzerland is tiny. That ratio is probably thrown off by some gun collector who has a thousand guns to his name.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

Switzerland is tiny. That ratio is probably thrown off by some gun collector who has a thousand guns to his name.

You are wrong. They all get their guns from the military and take them home. They also need to go practice by law.

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by Arne

You are wrong. They all get their guns from the military and take them home. They also need to go practice by law.

Shows my ignorance. But doesn't take away from the point that people should pass some sort of mental stability test. While I'm pretty sure service is mandatory in Switzerland, I'm pretty sure someone mentally unfit would not be obligated to serve, and thus, not given a firearm.

You also need to take under consideration what was the purpose of the second amendment. To bear arms in order to keep government in check... that's not what guns are being used for right now.

While there is much to be angry about in the nation no doubt, not the least the prison system which has been privatized and shown to be rather corrupt in quite a few stances, among other things, the "angry rhetoric" can go quite a long way in convincing someone crazy to go ballistic, quite literally, can push some crazy gun owner over the edge. While it *MIGHT* not be the case here (this guy really was completely cookoo, check his youtube page) it might do it for someone else.

I simply cannot see anything bad about more thorough screening of firearm sales. That in itself would lower the number of firearms somewhat, and lower the number of firearms in the hands of nutcases significantly.