|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 16, 2018 10:30:41 GMT -5
Glad to see you finally did some research, RJ. You're learning. What do you do for people who are not indicted? Not everyone is. In fact, the majority of people arrested are probably not indicted. So, holding a firearm to his mother's head, and again, to his brother's head, are not "arrestable offenses"? There were nearly 50 police calls to his house. None of them ended in his arrest. They should have. The police failed to do their jobs. It's a sheriff that is fully supportive of the "PROMISE" program, that refuses to arrest violent kids because that might affect them later in life. And you have yet to identify the 6 shootings you claim to have happened, or who defines them as "school shootings". As for the other shootings you note, every single one of the shooters was "on law enforcement's radar". In San Bernadino, it was illegal for them to have the firearms they had, in CA, to begin with. The "wife" had lied on her visa application, and The Puppet's criminals in the State Department ignored it. Orlando, he had been noticed casing the joint, and law enforcement had had complaints about him as well. Yes. Repeal nearly all the Federal "gun" laws, and arm everyone that wants to be armed. The incidents of violence will very quickly subside, because the criminals don't want to be shot by some guy walking down the street, and just happens to be armed, when he starts trying to make a name for himself by shooting a lot of unarmed innocents. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 16, 2018 10:34:15 GMT -5
Absolutely, RJ. More open and concealed carry laws are just what's needed. Even though the evidence shows that open and concealed carry results in a higher level of gun violence in states who pass such laws than before the laws were passed. Most of us want to DECREASE gun violence, not increase it. More unthinking partisan nonsense. Can you propose anything that might really work? Again, what "studies"? According to the FBI, "gun" violence is dropping precipitately, except in Party of the KKK controlled enclaves that refuse to allow citizens to defend themselves. CCW owners are, by a massive margin, less likely to commit a crime than the average individual. Just more Communist propaganda that you are anxious to regurgitate. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 16, 2018 10:39:29 GMT -5
Of course you do. They are one of the most Leftist universities in the country. So is Stanford. They both start with a conclusion, and do a "study" to prove their conclusions. I trust the FBI crime statistics far more than any Leftist "study", and they say that the safest places are the ones that have the most armed citizens. Kennesaw, GA comes to mind. They have had one murder, and nearly no other violent crimes, since they passed a law requiring every citizen to be armed. The "research" you name is like all the other "research" by Leftists. It includes suicides as "violent crimes", includes "kids" as old a 28 as minors, and wraps defensive use of firearms as "gun crimes". They don't differentiate between gang violence, which The Puppet supported, domestic violence, or defensive use of a firearm. Armed citizens do stop crimes. You, and your masters, just refuse to admit it. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 16, 2018 10:43:05 GMT -5
Cliff Notes provide no link to any research. They're a summary from somewhere or something, but there's no indication what the something or somewhere is, so no chance to try to view the original research to check methodology, data sources, etc. For a novice or a non-research it's great. For any serious researcher, it holds little value. Rand is a good resource. However, most of the articles mentioned use research from the 1970s to the early 2000s. While Rand notes that effects in many areas are inconclusive, it does note some evidence to indicate shall-issue laws result in an increase in violent crime. The Stanford study uses later data. It concludes that states with a right-to-carry law have an increase in violent crime. Picking studies isn't about confirmation bias -- though it might be for you, especially since you've proven that you don't understand research. Using Cliff Notes as a primary source is what I'm talking about. I point to the Stanford study because it uses more recent data than the other studies. A serious scholar doesn't just indiscriminately grab an article or two and regurgitate their conclusions. Just because a paper has been published does not mean that it's accurate. It's not about finding papers that support a particular viewpoint. It's about finding credible papers that use a proper methodology to reach a conclusion. Maybe some day you'll figure it out . . . but I doubt it. Continue to wallow in your unthinking partisanship. And yet, that's exactly what you just did. Just because your studies have been published doesn't mean they are accurate. They fly in the face of those that actually do crime prevention, like the FBI. Your studies don't show what percentage of the "gun" crime is committed by illegals, gang members, or career criminals. Those are categories that The Puppet and the Party of the KKK love, because they create the mayhem and murder that you and your masters want so badly. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 16, 2018 12:49:54 GMT -5
Cliff Notes provide no link to any research. They're a summary from somewhere or something, but there's no indication what the something or somewhere is, so no chance to try to view the original research to check methodology, data sources, etc. For a novice or a non-research it's great. For any serious researcher, it holds little value. Rand is a good resource. However, most of the articles mentioned use research from the 1970s to the early 2000s. While Rand notes that effects in many areas are inconclusive, it does note some evidence to indicate shall-issue laws result in an increase in violent crime. The Stanford study uses later data. It concludes that states with a right-to-carry law have an increase in violent crime. Picking studies isn't about confirmation bias -- though it might be for you, especially since you've proven that you don't understand research. Using Cliff Notes as a primary source is what I'm talking about. I point to the Stanford study because it uses more recent data than the other studies. A serious scholar doesn't just indiscriminately grab an article or two and regurgitate their conclusions. Just because a paper has been published does not mean that it's accurate. It's not about finding papers that support a particular viewpoint. It's about finding credible papers that use a proper methodology to reach a conclusion. Maybe some day you'll figure it out . . . but I doubt it. Continue to wallow in your unthinking partisanship. Except there's a fundamental problem using state-level data. In a state like Pennsylvania that has relatively lax state-level gun laws, gun violence in localities that have notably tighter gun laws (like Philadelphia) create the impression that Pennsylvania's gun laws are driving Philadelphia's violence problem. When, in fact, Philadelphia has both stricter laws, and higher violent crime rates than the rest of the state. Look, it doesn't take a study to see that the most violent jurisdictions in the country are its cities. These jurisdictions are almost entirely governed by hard-left gun-grabbibg Democrats. Taking advice on reducing gun violence from the people who bring us high-crime jurisdictions like Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago is foolish. Rand went looking for credible papers that use proper methodology. They found several. Some support your case, others do not. Recentness of the data isn't especially helpful on this topic. Another example of your Republican Bait and Switch, RJ. Thank you. You blame violent crime in cities on Democrats. I think you're full of stuff. Republicans constantly yell about reducing the National Debt, about reducing spending, about the need for tax cuts. Bust II cut taxes . . . to the benefit of the wealthy. Trump and the GOP just cut taxes . . . to the benefit of the wealthy and corporations, with some small benefit -- emphasis on SMALL -- to the middle class, a benefit which will decrease over the next few years. OH NO, the tax cuts will cause an increase in the deficit -- an estimated $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years!! So what's the Republican proposal for reducing the deficit? Cut away at what the GOP likes to call Entitlements -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, programs that actually help people. When programs that help poor people get reduced, those people suffer. When they suffer, they look for ways out, ways to make some money to support themselves and their families. So we end up with a drug culture, with violence, with a concentration of poor, with over-arrest, over incarceration, and the attendant criminal records and inability to secure employment. Democratic problem? There's probably some culpability. Republican problem? Very large contributors too. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 16, 2018 13:50:48 GMT -5
Except there's a fundamental problem using state-level data. In a state like Pennsylvania that has relatively lax state-level gun laws, gun violence in localities that have notably tighter gun laws (like Philadelphia) create the impression that Pennsylvania's gun laws are driving Philadelphia's violence problem. When, in fact, Philadelphia has both stricter laws, and higher violent crime rates than the rest of the state. Look, it doesn't take a study to see that the most violent jurisdictions in the country are its cities. These jurisdictions are almost entirely governed by hard-left gun-grabbibg Democrats. Taking advice on reducing gun violence from the people who bring us high-crime jurisdictions like Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago is foolish. Rand went looking for credible papers that use proper methodology. They found several. Some support your case, others do not. Recentness of the data isn't especially helpful on this topic. Another example of your Republican Bait and Switch, RJ. Thank you. That's because you live in a fictitious world. Chicago has essentially banned the private ownership of firearms, yet has the second highest rate of "gun" crime in the country. How many prosecutions have they had for illegally owning a firearm? Using a firearm in the commission of a crime? Last stats I saw were, they had one, ONE, prosecution on either of those charges. How many times will you repeat that lie? Yes, "the rich" get a small tax cut. But then, so did nearly everyone else. Except the Party of the KKK serfs that don't pay any taxes anyway. The decrease was something your masters demanded, and still didn't vote for any of it. "Entitlements" are the largest single item in the budget. They overpower all others by factors of 5 or 6. Get rid of "entitlements" and stop raiding SS and Medicare, give Medicaid and welfare back to the states, where it legally belongs, and use that money to pay down The Puppet's debt. I don't recall you complaining that The Puppet was doubling the debt in only 8 years, and using that money to pay off his financiers. The drug culture, violence, the poor, are all intended consequences of Party of the KKK policies. That's why they demand that we keep importing millions of illegal Democrats, who are nearly all illiterate, even in their own language, can't speak English, and have no clue what liberty means because they all come from Socialist sh*tholes. If you don't want to be arrested, don't commit crimes. What you are implying is that we should not arrest and convict criminals, because that would affect them later in life. So, you support more Cruz's, who will one day shoot up schools because they were never barred from buying a firearm, and were never punished because of their criminal activities. Democratic problem? There's probably some culpability. Republican problem? Very large contributors too. No, it's a Democrat problem. Notice that every one of the highest crime cities have been controlled by the Party of the KKK for decades? Some since the turn of the last century? |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 16, 2018 14:02:03 GMT -5
Except there's a fundamental problem using state-level data. In a state like Pennsylvania that has relatively lax state-level gun laws, gun violence in localities that have notably tighter gun laws (like Philadelphia) create the impression that Pennsylvania's gun laws are driving Philadelphia's violence problem. When, in fact, Philadelphia has both stricter laws, and higher violent crime rates than the rest of the state. Look, it doesn't take a study to see that the most violent jurisdictions in the country are its cities. These jurisdictions are almost entirely governed by hard-left gun-grabbibg Democrats. Taking advice on reducing gun violence from the people who bring us high-crime jurisdictions like Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago is foolish. Rand went looking for credible papers that use proper methodology. They found several. Some support your case, others do not. Recentness of the data isn't especially helpful on this topic. Another example of your Republican Bait and Switch, RJ. Thank you. You blame violent crime in cities on Democrats. I think you're full of stuff. Of course violent crime in cities is caused by Democrats. Democrats run the cities, including police departments, and the people who live in the cities (including the criminals) overwhemingly vote for them. So unless you're contending that republican deplorables are driving in from the low-crime rural areas where they live to shoot the place up, then hell yes, Democrats are responsible for high crime cities. I'll put it this way, when you think someone else is full of crap, chances are excellent they know exactly what they're talking about. You sure as he'll don't, and I have never seen any evidence you ever have. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 16, 2018 21:29:51 GMT -5
Just what I expected, RJ. A regurgitation of the GOP party line by another unthinking GOP partisan. Sorry you continue to deny reality, but that's what happens when you get your "news" and "facts" from right and alt-right sites. It's what you do all the time -- blame Democrats for everything, never holding any Republicans responsible for anything.
Saw an interesting post on Facebook a few days back. A month ago 17 students were killed in a Florida high school. Despite the national outcry, despite a majority of the country -- including your beloved Republicans -- want some form of stronger gun control, Congress has done nothing. No bills introduced, nothing. Earlier this week a dog died in an airplane. Two days later the Senate had a bill introducted regarding this issue.
Guess the GOP is more interested in dogs that people. That's what your posts continue to show anyway.
Have a nice weekend. Hope you can expand your horizons beyond your narrow unthinking partisan talking points.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 17, 2018 7:39:42 GMT -5
Just what I expected, RJ. A regurgitation of the GOP party line by another unthinking GOP partisan. Sorry you continue to deny reality, but that's what happens when you get your "news" and "facts" from right and alt-right sites. It's what you do all the time -- blame Democrats for everything, never holding any Republicans responsible for anything. Saw an interesting post on Facebook a few days back. A month ago 17 students were killed in a Florida high school. Despite the national outcry, despite a majority of the country -- including your beloved Republicans -- want some form of stronger gun control, Congress has done nothing. No bills introduced, nothing. Earlier this week a dog died in an airplane. Two days later the Senate had a bill introducted regarding this issue. Guess the GOP is more interested in dogs that people. That's what your posts continue to show anyway. Have a nice weekend. Hope you can expand your horizons beyond your narrow unthinking partisan talking points. How many Republicans do you think live in places like Baltimore or Chicago? |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 17, 2018 10:24:41 GMT -5
What about GOP fiscal policies that benefit the wealthy and large corporation, hurt the poor and middle class, and increase the deficit while GOP members continue to cry that the deficit must be reduced, spending reeled in, and size of government reduced? Think we'll ever see the GOP actually do anything to reduce spending, cut the size of government, or reduce the deficit? I'm sure that, in your continued biased unthinking partisanship, you think this might happen, but it never has under the GOP and never will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 17, 2018 10:34:10 GMT -5
What about GOP fiscal policies that benefit the wealthy and large corporation, hurt the poor and middle class, and increase the deficit while GOP members continue to cry that the deficit must be reduced, spending reeled in, and size of government reduced? Think we'll ever see the GOP actually do anything to reduce spending, cut the size of government, or reduce the deficit? I'm sure that, in your continued biased unthinking partisanship, you think this might happen, but it never has under the GOP and never will. If the root of gun crime is economics, then say so, and we can all move beyond idiotic gun grabing and do something effective to stop it. Of course your apparent suggestion is to destroy all of the big employers. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 17, 2018 11:50:02 GMT -5
Do you ever read and think about what you read? Ever take time to actually consider things? I made a point earlier that you more or less ignored. You see the small detail that may or may not support your unthinkingly partisan mindset and ignore the main arguments.
I suggest you reread what I've written and, when you can understand it and are ready to discuss the issue intelligently, let me know. Of course, I really don't expect anything from you, given your history of misinterpreting everything, but for some strange reason I still have hope you may change for the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 17, 2018 12:53:41 GMT -5
To an earlier point, RJ. 6 school shootings since Parkland. This list does not include 2 other shootings, one by a teacher who shot out a window and 1 by a teacher who was demonstrating "gun safety" with a gun he was not authorized to have in a classroom that was accidentally discharges (makes one wonder about the widsom of having armed teachers in school, dosn't it).
Feb 24: Savannah State University, Savannah, GA -- 1 person killed.
Feb 27: Mississippi Valley State University, Itta Bena, Miss -- 1 person shot, non-life threatening injury.
Feb 27: Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA -- 1 person shot, not seriously injured.
Mar 2: Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mighigan -- 2 persons killed.
Mar 7: Jackson State University, Jackson,, Mississippi -- 1 student shot, injuries were not life threatening.
Mar 7: Huffman High School Birmingham, AL --1 student killed, 1 critically injured.
But it's OK, right, RJ? There's nothing anyone can do except strentthen background checks, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 17, 2018 14:54:07 GMT -5
To an earlier point, RJ. 6 school shootings since Parkland. This list does not include 2 other shootings, one by a teacher who shot out a window and 1 by a teacher who was demonstrating "gun safety" with a gun he was not authorized to have in a classroom that was accidentally discharges (makes one wonder about the widsom of having armed teachers in school, dosn't it). Feb 24: Savannah State University, Savannah, GA -- 1 person killed. Feb 27: Mississippi Valley State University, Itta Bena, Miss -- 1 person shot, non-life threatening injury. Feb 27: Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA -- 1 person shot, not seriously injured. Mar 2: Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mighigan -- 2 persons killed. Mar 7: Jackson State University, Jackson,, Mississippi -- 1 student shot, injuries were not life threatening. Mar 7: Huffman High School Birmingham, AL --1 student killed, 1 critically injured. But it's OK, right, RJ? There's nothing anyone can do except strentthen background checks, right? How many are suicides? How many are drug related? How many acquired the gun illegally, and would not have been stopped by more gun control because they stole their weapon? |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 17, 2018 16:21:13 GMT -5
None were suicides. All involved someone shooting and hurting someone else.
The point it that I pointed out the 6 shootings which you weren't even aware of. Obviously the topic has no interest to you, and you're content with the status quo. As we all know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 17, 2018 16:27:30 GMT -5
None were suicides. All involved someone shooting and hurting someone else. The point it that I pointed out the 6 shootings which you weren't even aware of. Obviously the topic has no interest to you, and you're content with the status quo. As we all know. Without knowing details, this isn't helpful is it? Again, if you've got stolen or otherwise illegally obtained guns, adding another law that these people will just break isn't going to do anything. On the other hand, allowing innocent people the ability to defend themselves becomes critical in a society where police and laws don't stop violent crime. |
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Mar 18, 2018 0:43:09 GMT -5
Yep, you have. You said, ". . . left another 1,000 young girls . . . ." According to the article, as many as 1,000. There's a bit of a difference, wouldn't you agree? You refer to Pakistani rape-jihadists. I've read the article 3 or 4 times, but don't see either word there. I did see Asian referring to these gang members. Of course, since the alt-right xenophobia doesn't necessarily extend to Buddhists or Hindus, let's make sure they're all from Pakistan or some other Muslim country. And you make it sound like this activity has been going on with no police activity. However, the article notes that the police have investigated several cases and several perps have been incarcerated. It's a tragic situation. It's something that should not have happened and should not be happening. But to try to make it a political issue to denigrate a particular ethnic group and the British police is going a bit too far, even for you. How many Buddhists or Hindus have 'immigrated' to Britain? How many use their religion as an excuse to rape, or murder? Of course, the British "press" uses "Asian" instead of "Arab" to hide the fact that these are jihadists, who have "immigrated" to Britain to carry on jihad, and destroy Britain as a once free and powerful country. They are there to out breed Brits, and therefore gain control of the country through sheer force of numbers. And no, there is no practical difference between "1,000 young girls" and "as many as...", especially since the "media" in Britain is just as corrupted and PC as the "media" here. Ummm... forgive me for nit-picking, but Pakistanis are not Arabs. Arabs are Semites. Pakistanis (natives to India before the partition) are Aryans. [Yeah, just another thing Hitler messed up. Doesn't mean we have to. Both groups are Caucasian, if you care about such things.] |
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Mar 18, 2018 1:08:34 GMT -5
And... we're back to: BAN GUNS vs DON'T BAN GUNS.
Aside from the fact that we've been killing each other since we lived in caves...
I don't think it's a matter of weaponry. We've had guns of this sort for a long while now, without anyone (not directed by the government in warfare) setting out to kill perfect strangers who'd done nothing whatsoever to them.
There is something new and different going on here. I suspect it is about our habit of apotheosizing victimhood, while elevating refusal to conform to the standards of what used to be called "polite society" to an art form.
Sure, we can take guns away from ourselves. We have children, marching on Washington, shouting, "Please pass laws to make us kids stop killing each other!" (An odd request, certainly, but they must know themselves and their own proclivities. One expressed terror that she, herself, would be permitted to purchase a gun next year.) We can have Big Brother watch our every move, no matter how innocent, and have committees decide which activities are "markers". (Attending an evangelical church or mosque? Having an interest in Confederate history? Being a veteran of the US Armed Forces? Buying a necklace in a Wiccan crystal shop? Wearing our hair too long or too short? No telling what a committee of "decent busybodies" might come up with, "for the greater good."
Really, I don't think banning things is where we want to go. Nor, do I think it will solve what is obviously a cultural problem, not a weaponry problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 19, 2018 9:36:57 GMT -5
To an earlier point, RJ. 6 school shootings since Parkland. This list does not include 2 other shootings, one by a teacher who shot out a window and 1 by a teacher who was demonstrating "gun safety" with a gun he was not authorized to have in a classroom that was accidentally discharges (makes one wonder about the widsom of having armed teachers in school, dosn't it). Feb 24: Savannah State University, Savannah, GA -- 1 person killed. Feb 27: Mississippi Valley State University, Itta Bena, Miss -- 1 person shot, non-life threatening injury. Feb 27: Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA -- 1 person shot, not seriously injured. Neither of which were students. Neither was the shooter. It was a domestic violence issue, which just happened to be on a school's grounds. Mar 7: Jackson State University, Jackson,, Mississippi -- 1 student shot, injuries were not life threatening. Mar 7: Huffman High School Birmingham, AL --1 student killed, 1 critically injured. But it's OK, right, RJ? There's nothing anyone can do except strentthen background checks, right? How many of the shooters were "on law enforcement's radar"? As for the "teacher" that had an ND, he was a police officer, as well. I guess that shows how safe it is to have police officers armed, right? |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 19, 2018 9:38:37 GMT -5
None were suicides. All involved someone shooting and hurting someone else. The point it that I pointed out the 6 shootings which you weren't even aware of. Obviously the topic has no interest to you, and you're content with the status quo. As we all know. And there have been nearly 200 shot in Chicago since the FL shooting. How many of those have you heard about? I guess it's because they are all black, and poor, and you and your masters don't care about poor blacks being shot and killed, unless you can use their deaths to further your Communist agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 19, 2018 9:40:34 GMT -5
How many Buddhists or Hindus have 'immigrated' to Britain? How many use their religion as an excuse to rape, or murder? Of course, the British "press" uses "Asian" instead of "Arab" to hide the fact that these are jihadists, who have "immigrated" to Britain to carry on jihad, and destroy Britain as a once free and powerful country. They are there to out breed Brits, and therefore gain control of the country through sheer force of numbers. And no, there is no practical difference between "1,000 young girls" and "as many as...", especially since the "media" in Britain is just as corrupted and PC as the "media" here. Ummm... forgive me for nit-picking, but Pakistanis are not Arabs. Arabs are Semites. Pakistanis (natives to India before the partition) are Aryans. [Yeah, just another thing Hitler messed up. Doesn't mean we have to. Both groups are Caucasian, if you care about such things.] You are absolutely correct. I apologize for my oversight. Thank you for catching it. However, the British press uses "Asian", or "southern Asian" as a ruse to hide the fact that nearly all the perpetrators are Muslim. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 19, 2018 9:42:59 GMT -5
And... we're back to: BAN GUNS vs DON'T BAN GUNS. Aside from the fact that we've been killing each other since we lived in caves... I don't think it's a matter of weaponry. We've had guns of this sort for a long while now, without anyone (not directed by the government in warfare) setting out to kill perfect strangers who'd done nothing whatsoever to them. There is something new and different going on here. I suspect it is about our habit of apotheosizing victimhood, while elevating refusal to conform to the standards of what used to be called "polite society" to an art form. Sure, we can take guns away from ourselves. We have children, marching on Washington, shouting, "Please pass laws to make us kids stop killing each other!" (An odd request, certainly, but they must know themselves and their own proclivities. One expressed terror that she, herself, would be permitted to purchase a gun next year.) We can have Big Brother watch our every move, no matter how innocent, and have committees decide which activities are "markers". (Attending an evangelical church or mosque? Having an interest in Confederate history? Being a veteran of the US Armed Forces? Buying a necklace in a Wiccan crystal shop? Wearing our hair too long or too short? No telling what a committee of "decent busybodies" might come up with, "for the greater good." Really, I don't think banning things is where we want to go. Nor, do I think it will solve what is obviously a cultural problem, not a weaponry problem. Nor does it pass the consistency test. They call Trump "Hitler", a "fascist", a "dictator", and a "tyrant", yet want him to have all the firepower, and disarm all the populace to give him a clear shot at actual dictatorship. |
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Mar 20, 2018 0:47:39 GMT -5
And... we're back to: BAN GUNS vs DON'T BAN GUNS. Aside from the fact that we've been killing each other since we lived in caves... I don't think it's a matter of weaponry. We've had guns of this sort for a long while now, without anyone (not directed by the government in warfare) setting out to kill perfect strangers who'd done nothing whatsoever to them. There is something new and different going on here. I suspect it is about our habit of apotheosizing victimhood, while elevating refusal to conform to the standards of what used to be called "polite society" to an art form. Sure, we can take guns away from ourselves. We have children, marching on Washington, shouting, "Please pass laws to make us kids stop killing each other!" (An odd request, certainly, but they must know themselves and their own proclivities. One expressed terror that she, herself, would be permitted to purchase a gun next year.) We can have Big Brother watch our every move, no matter how innocent, and have committees decide which activities are "markers". (Attending an evangelical church or mosque? Having an interest in Confederate history? Being a veteran of the US Armed Forces? Buying a necklace in a Wiccan crystal shop? Wearing our hair too long or too short? No telling what a committee of "decent busybodies" might come up with, "for the greater good." Really, I don't think banning things is where we want to go. Nor, do I think it will solve what is obviously a cultural problem, not a weaponry problem. Nor does it pass the consistency test. They call Trump "Hitler", a "fascist", a "dictator", and a "tyrant", yet want him to have all the firepower, and disarm all the populace to give him a clear shot at actual dictatorship. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? I suspect they see Trump as a one-off. Bring him down and they, being the party of Big Government bureaucrats (and attendant unionized minions just seeking more money and bennies), will be back in power and hold all the guns. Or, of course, they might just be like rabid, alt-right "conservatives", not thinking much at all, beyond easy slogans. IOW, just another group of "useful idiots". |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 20, 2018 19:31:33 GMT -5
Nor does it pass the consistency test. They call Trump "Hitler", a "fascist", a "dictator", and a "tyrant", yet want him to have all the firepower, and disarm all the populace to give him a clear shot at actual dictatorship. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? I suspect they see Trump as a one-off. Bring him down and they, being the party of Big Government bureaucrats (and attendant unionized minions just seeking more money and bennies), will be back in power and hold all the guns. Or, of course, they might just be like rabid, alt-right "conservatives", not thinking much at all, beyond easy slogans. IOW, just another group of "useful idiots". I think you are far closer with your last comment. They never think, they just react as they are told to react. Like using kindergartners to "protest" against firearms and the 2A, or college kids to attack anyone that doesn't toe the "Progressive" line. |
|
