Sandy Hook Elementary School Victims Relief Fund

My normal example is alcohol, not motor vehicles. Does that mean you consider alcohol a necessity?

I've remembering evidence of only a single gunshot during the Insurrection, and it wasn't from any of the Insurrectionists. It seems that few Insurrectionists were carrying guns, they were very heavily armed with a wide array of other weapons not covered by 2A.

As a militia, they were not the local/state militia meant to be available for call-up by a local/state government to fend off foreign enemies or even Feds gone amuck. They were a private or select militia, which other documents very clearly indicate is unprotected.

You are correct 2A isn't about hobbies or deer hunting. But back in P45's second year, you were asking why we anti-Trump gun owners hadn't already used the Second Amendment to take down his administration. That betrays a very warped view of this issue, and extreme impatience with our defined political processes. Had we down so, even if we succeeded, the consequential damages would be a couple orders of magnitude worse than what has (so far) happened.

 

Something I didn't (yet) comment on before your disappearance or exile several years ago, so will bring up now ---

In past discussions, you repeatedly misstated and misrepresented my postings and views so severely, that the most charitable description I could make was of you confusing with me with another, prior poster, one of the "hard core" far to my right.

That possibility was essentially verified by these statements of yours:

(Apr 5, 2018) "You've been arguing in favour of the Second Amendment for as long as I can remember. "

A search finds that you've been arguing this topic in FHoPol since at least 2012.

(Mar 11, 2018) "I gave up on data and analysis about 18 months ago when it became clear that you would not acknowledge them. "

That search finds that indeed, you were talking data and analysis through that 2012-2016 timeframe. You claim to have given up on me a couple months before Trump's election in 2016.

The problem: My FHoPol join date[*] was on or about Apr 29, 2017, several months after Trump's Inauguration, and you first replied to me on May 8, 2017. So you gave up on me about 7 months before I even joined!

Ergo, you have confused me with someone else, who was working this topic before my time here. Someone very substantially to my right.

Had I seen your data and analysis that I now see in the 2012-16 period, I would have responded heavily against the problems and cherrypicking I can see in those materials, but not with the same materials that the right-wing "hard core" normally brings. Most of their stuff is not better than yours.

[*] I did briefly join FHoPol for very long ago, before unsubscribing within a few weeks, without ever crossing paths with you. That appears to have been mostly in July 2012. Outside that time window, I replied to a few outside threads later banished to FHoPol, where lack of access prevented me from further reading or participating in them.

 

Honestly? From a societal point of view, probably. Again, while every alcohol-related death is terrible, I am OK with it by the same measure that I am OK with road deaths and that you appear to be OK with school shootings. I am not prepared to make society give up alcohol, and I know those deaths are the price for this. I've made that choice, and I own it. I'd suggest you do the same.

Your bringing up alcohol (no pun intended) is actually a better comparison than road deaths: neither target shooting nor drinking beer are fundamentally necessary to society's survival, and yet they are things we choose to allow in spite of the deaths that they inevitably cause.

Yes, I know. And I found that really peculiar. Like I said, the few that were seemed to be closer to 2A than anyone else I can think of with a gun. And yet most didn't carry them.

No, they were - in their, wrong, view - very precisely a militia to fend off "Feds gone amuck".

And yet this is what everyone fights to protect, while claiming they're defending 2A.

Yes, I was. And you didn't. You won't when the far right takes permanent control in 2024 either.

 

Again, I am not trying to get you to ban guns. It's your country.

I just find every single argument in favour of them to be utterly devoid of logic, honesty or intellectual rigour. I think America needs to stop with the hand-wringing and the thoughts and prayers, and to say, "These deaths are the result of our choices and we are not going to change our minds. We like guns, and if owning them means kids get shot sometimes, that is the price we are prepared to pay."

Keep your guns. We don't want them.

But don't tell us they keep you safe. Don't tell us the murder rate would be just as high without them. Don't tell us there's no point in preventing gun deaths because people also drink themselves to death or get run over or fall downstairs.

I have never misstated or misrepresented your views. I have said they did not stand up to scrutiny. That's different.

 

1) correct, it's mine. it's great. I love it.

2) do you really find all arguments below your abilities, or is this just the normal condescending tone that doesn't lead to more discussion ?

3) my hands don't wringing, I don't do thoughts and prayers. I do however say "punish the criminals quickly and severely, instead of slapping wrists". normally, the anti gun crowd is against punishments for criminals, which is bizarre to me.

4) negative Ghost Rider. those deaths were the result of a murderous person's choices, NOT MINE. my owning of cars, bulldozers, guns, jets, explosives, flammables, machetes, or well, anything that could be used to harm others, has nothing to do with a murderers choices. please, bring a good argument spring your claim that my choices in possessing things effects murderers choices.

5) that may be your opinion, but it's not mine. of course I'm not ok with violence.

6) with or without your blessing, we plan to.

7) ahhh, yes. this one is rich. if guns don't keep people safe, why does every single security detail for elected/appointed officials , have guns ?

 

6) that's not a collective 'we'. i'm hoping for enlightenment in younger generations

 

Hope and change.

Never misstated or misrepresented?

Sure.
We have the same method of "fact checking" here in the US.
PolitiFact
See also:
Heckler's Veto | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
As you are more traveled than I perhaps you've seen the same respect for different points of view on display by the ChiComms, or perhaps the House of Saud, or the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Substitute Abortion for Gun Ownership as your destination and recalculate.
Perhaps in another thread.

As pointed out above, gun control isn't about the gun....it's about control.
THE SECOND right in our BILL OF RIGHTS (they are hierarchical) wasn't written so that people could shoot ducks or knock holes in paper any more than the FIRST of our Bill Of Rights was written to protect "artists" that want to dunk a Holy Bible into a jar of urine.

WE used and USE privately owned firearms to secure and then ensure our freedom.
Ask any Afghan if this is still relevant in "these modern times."
Too far away?
Too "religiony" for you?
...... try Vietnam, then.

Or?
Perhaps anyone down in Oz.
NT police arrest three people who escaped from Howard Springs Covid quarantine facility | Darwin | The Guardian.

It's really hard to see in places where the Southern Cross is not visible if you REALLY have COVID camps, or if perhaps this is just another Murdoch inspired bit of propaganda that can be swatted aside by 'othering' those nettlesome voices of dissent.

As you can see....private firearms ownership does not strip away one's right to be an intellectual bully.

Here or there.

Or..... perhaps, AU really did use their military to enforce Covid Lockdown restrictions.

Not criticizing, mind you.
Your nation.
Your rules.
...and....you guys live in a rough neighborhood!

Thanks to Obama's "pivot to the Pacific, we now have a (brigade, regiment sized?) permanent military force in your country, and pretty soon you guys, like Germany, will have some MORE US-spec hardware "on the cheap."


Perhaps you can use THEM for "border enforcement" like you use your (our) P8 Poseidon aircraft -eh?
Not OFFICIALLY, mind you.

You and I have talked before about AU's somewhat interesting history with "camps" and using the military in ways that OUR nation does not.
One of the reasons that I was wrong in the past (and I DO admit when I AM WRONG) about Posse_Comitatus is that military excesses can be dangerous.
If one of the "downsides" of OUR nation not using our military for border enforcement is that we get to maintain positive population (tax base/labour pool) growth?

I can live with that.

Still....a nation DOES get to have borders, eh?
Ask Ireland.....or maybe someday....Scotland.

 

Jolly good. It is nice that you live somewhere that you like. I do too!

I am not saying I don't understand the arguments. I am saying they are stupid, facile, and disappointingly easy to instantly counter with facts and logic. See, for example, 3, 4 and 7 below.

I hope this helps.

Good that you are not wringing hands. You could get cramp. It is important to keep those trigger fingers limber.

You seem primarily to be saying, "Punish the criminals if necessary, but do not take any steps at all to do anything which might prevent such crimes in the future."

No, I think a lot of anti-gun people were all in favour of punishing, for example, Rittenhouse. Not even a slap on the wrist there, though.

We have murderous people in other countries too. They make bad choices. But they can't shoot us because they don't have guns.

Your murder rate is at least four times that of any comparable country. 3/4 of your murders - all of the difference between you and, say, Australia or the UK - happen because you chose to ensure that those murderers could have guns.

No, of course you are not OK with violence. You are only OK with ensuring that everyone has easy access to the most effective tool of violence, so that if they have violent urges they can kill people as efficiently as possible.

I KNOW!! I've said that repeatedly.

Ummm...... No, no, don't tell me....

Oh, yes, it's because they are trained professionals. And because they need guns because you have ensured that everyone who dislikes an elected/appointed official has the means to quickly and easily kill them.

Are you (a) safer when you have an armed team of people who work for you defending you from armed crazies who have the means to kill you, or (b) safer when you don't have an armed team of people who work for you, but the crazies don't have the means to kill you?

I'll give you a clue. It's (b).

I once got knocked over by accident by the then Australian Deputy Prime Minister (now leader of the opposition): he walked backwards into me when we were both queueing for passes to get into a TV station, where we were both giving interviews. He had no security team, and had driven himself to the TV station. In spite of not having a security team, he was perfectly safe. He didn't get shot, and nor did I.

I once knocked over the Hong Kong Finance Secretary (later head of the HK government). I was walking from my office to a shop to buy lunch, and he was doing the same, and we walked into each other because we weren't looking where we were going. In spite of not having a security team, he was perfectly safe. He didn't get shot, and nor did I.

I regularly meet government ministers and shadow ministers. They are on their own and do not have security teams. We meet in public, in pubs and cafes and stuff. In spite of not having security teams, they are perfectly safe. They don't get shot, and nor did I.

Your politicians have armed security teams. And the people who hate them are armed. And people on both sides get shot, really quite often.

I hope this clears things up for you. And yet, somehow, I doubt it will.

 

Animals in a zoo are....safer.

But.
They have to live at the zoo.

 

Sorry. I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

If it's any help, I've got some understanding of China and Iran from having spent time in both places. I can't help you on Saudi.

Good point. I think Roe vs Wade does have to be addressed. At the moment, doctors really do have an unfair advantage over school shooters.

It's about control of guns.

That's why there are two words in "gun control" ("gun" and "control").

It's not about control of everything. And it is not about guns for everything.

One of the beauties of language - when used with a degree of accuracy that I didn't see in that first part of your post - is that it explains what it means.

No, the SECOND right in your BILL OF RIGHTS was about having a well-regulated militia. You should read it!

How are privately-owned firearms currently ensuring your freedom? Please, be specific.

Yes, this is a good point. Arming the crazies since 1980 has really gone well there, hasn't it? I can't think of a country that's more free.

What? Are you saying that the Vietnamese people are not free because they are only slightly more heavily armed than the Taiwanese?

I think what you're trying to say here is that Australians are not free because there are quarantine facilities and that we would be free if we had guns. Is that right?

That's funny.

There's two weeks' quarantine for unvaccinated arrivals from overseas, and for all arrivals from the same countries that the US has closed its borders to.

The people who were allowed to come into Australia from South Africa on condition that they spent two weeks in quarantine to protect the rest of society would not have been allowed to enter the US at all.

Tell me again about that freedom you love and that "othering" of which you so disapprove.

No, again this makes no sense. I don't know what you're trying to say.

Yes, they did.

We've so far had 2,050 Covid deaths - that'd be equivalent to about 25,000 in the US. You've had 787,000 - at least.

The job of the military is to protect the lives of the populace. They did that here. About 95% of the population was cool with it.

Indeed.

No we don't.

Sorry - struggling to make sense of this.

 

We're not in a zoo.

Animals on a shooting range, though? Not safe. Not free.

Seriously, what freedom do you have because you have guns that I do not have because I do not have a gun? (Other than the freedom to have a gun, obviously.)

 

Noted.

Obviously.

You're presumably an educated person, otherwise you would not be bragging all the time about "bumping" into high ranking government officials.
HOWEVER
I CHOOSE to believe that you're not being intentionally thick about history and geopolitics and that we're simply disassociated enough culturally not to understand each other.

It's like trying to explain jazz music to somebody.
WE either get it and no explanation is necessary, or we don't - and no explanation will suffice.

As far as your not living in a rough neighborhood, geopolitically?

Well....
BOTH of our nations have sad histories of sticking our noses into things that we should not, and being something of tyrant indulgent isolationists, ALSO when we should not.

FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH....
I hope YOU are right about your neighborhood, but my understanding of history....hampered perhaps by my not being "classically educated" inclines me to lean the other way.

Good to have you back.

Best.....

 

how many generations since the revolution? how did that gene get passed down so many times so effectively.
this is beginning to sound like the vaccination thread. freedom

 

Or...conversely, how did we "progress" from a time when authoritarianism and government overreach were fought against so furiously in just a few short years?

Some of us might even have been alive back when "question authority" and "my body, my choice" meant completely different things.....

 

Not educated. Just clumsy. And it's not just politicians: I posted the other day about knocking over Michelle Yeoh in a pub.

That's not an answer.

I asked you what freedom you have because you have guns that I do not have because I do not have a gun. Not anything historical. Now.

Please, tell me. Because I really would like to know why your guns give you freedom and my lack of a gun gives me no freedom.

I think it would add a lot to the discussion.

I'm not talking abstracts. I'm not talking explaining jazz. In what ways are you free that I am not because I am not armed?

I will concede that our current Defence Minister is desperately trying to start WWIII, and he has our Prime Minister's support. The Defence Minister wants to kill Asians, and the PM wants to kill atheists, so they have found a common enemy.

But that doesn't mean we live in a dangerous neighbourhood. We really are the only dangerous player in the neighbourhood. I can't see New Zealand or Tuvalu invading us. Or even Indonesia.

 

i'll just put this... here
massies-gun-collection-they-shouldnt-be-in-the-hands-of-civilians

 

Is there a thing I can click that's like a "like" button because I think the post is a good and interesting one, but which doesn't imply that I like the content or the horrible, horrible people in the picture this link contains? Like an "ew" button or something?

 

Nuff said.

I believe you clicked it.
Horrible, horrible -eh?

My my….

FWIW, I would suggest that people reading the Guardian article consider making a contribution.

I have never much agreed with their editorial board, but once upon a time I could at least respect them for their accuracy….until just now.

 

You're not trying to hint at China, are you?

1. Not a threat, other than a threat of counter-attack.
2. Not exactly "our neighbourhood". I'm about 5,500 miles from Beijing; you're about 6,250 miles from Beijing. Our "neighbourhood" is Indonesia, PNG, NZ, and the various South Pacific Islands. And we're interfering in the Solomons at the moment.

Yep.

Go on... where's the inaccuracy?

-----

On the subject of accuracy, I believe someone claimed on this very thread that having guns made them free, and that people in countries without guns were not free. A former submariner, if memory serves. But then he didn't bother backing up that claim in any way - in spite of being asked repeatedly to do so - which would appear to render his claim highly fanciful at best, unless shown otherwise.

 

i find that they have many more interesting articles than other outlets as i browse apple news, and they don't have pay walls.
so after donating to wiki, i tried to donate to the guardian, and they wanted my email with payment. their loss.