We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I was wondering if this would be a good time for Michael Bennett to fly down and tell the Las Vegas PD how racist they are. On film.
Was that nasty? Yes.
Was that fair? Also yes.
#1
Assistant Village Idiot
(Link)
on
2017-10-03 09:52
(Reply)
Veterans angry, disappointed following PBS’ Vietnam War documentary. Was there. Only one tour. Gave no more thought to this latest cut and paste job than to any of it's forefathers. They're all the same. Same agenda. Same photo clips. Same tone of voice....
"Hillary Clinton slams the GOP and NRA as ´complicit´ in US gun violence..."
American voters were incredibly prescient and lucky in electing Trump. If Hillary had won she would be forcing useless and oppressive gun control down our throats. She would have appointed far left judges to our courts to facilitate the "taking" of our civil rights. Hillary proves everyday how smart the American voters were in the last election. Hopefully the silent majority is "woke" enough to keep on this track of restoring lost rights and rejecting the authoritarianism and anti-constitutional left.
Accept that you cannot prevent every bad thing from happening. That is the first step. If it wasn't guns, it would've been explosives. If it wasn't explosives, it would've been something else.
Better to teach children that they are not 'victims' in our society and that they are accountable for their own actions & choices in life. That life is unfair without reason or explanation...it just IS.
The left has created a country full of people who believe they have someone to blame for their bad choices in life or their situation. We all are born into this world in different circumstances. No one is to blame for that. It's just LIFE.
But continuing the idea that someone got a bad hand in life due to SOMEONE else, is just wrong. And it creates, in certain people, a need to act out in the most violent of ways.
I would suggest the press could help by ending reporting that encourages violent reactions in people by promoting false assumptions as truth, by demonizing one side over the other in political discussions, by pitting races and classes against each other.
Assistant Village Idiot: Don't allow people to drive vans near bridges in London.
Improved security on roads and walkways are being implemented, but won't stop an attack such as in Las Vegas.
MissT: Accept that you cannot prevent every bad thing from happening.
Sure, but accepting that society is helpless against such mass attacks virtually guarantees their recurrence. The problem is one of scale. With the right tools, a single person can cause hundreds of casualties.
MissT: If it wasn't guns, it would've been explosives.
Explosives are tightly controlled.
MissT: Better to teach children that they are not 'victims' in our society and that they are accountable for their own actions & choices in life.
Sure, but that won't prevent mass attacks. It's not as if there was a good old days where everyone lived in peace.
Sam L: Taking away our guns won't do it.
Why not? Restricting semi-automatic weapons with large magazines that can be easily converted to fully-automatic would seem one way to limit excessive firepower.
Why not? Restricting semi-automatic weapons with large magazines that can be easily converted to fully-automatic would seem one way to limit excessive firepower.
#3.1.5.1
drowningpuppies
on
2017-10-03 16:31
(Reply)
Guns don't even make it to the top ten causes of preventable death in this country. Let's assume that those on the left bemoaning this tragedy and demanding gun control to prevent them would feel the same about those other ten cause that kill far more people. If we outlaw cars (all motor vehicles), for example we could save tens of thousands of lives. But no one hysterically demands the end of motor vehicle ownership to "protect itself from mass-casualties". It is ONLY convenient to blame the inanimate object when that object is guns. It is no coincidence that the far left in every country that replaces a democracy with a repressive authoritarian government first takes away private ownership of guns. Our left wing Democrat party scares me; scares me as badly as the Nazi government should have scared Germans in the 30's. I do not think they want good things for citizens of this country I think they only want good things for left wing politicians and causes AND most importantly, have made a deal with the devil (communist groups) to achieve this nefarious goal. Anyone who uses these terrible tragedies for anti-constitutional, anti-civil rights political gains scares me.
You beg the question. There is a case to be made that private ownership of guns is actively used about 3 million times a year to prevent crimes; murders, rapes, etc. Without private gun ownership how would society protect itself from those attacks? Everyone has a god given right to defend themselves and I fear politicians who would take that from us.
#3.1.6
GoneWithTheWind
on
2017-10-03 19:02
(Reply)
There are trade offs everywhere.
There were 40,000 motor vehicle DEATHS in 2016. Certainly, eliminating motor vehicles would severely reduce that number, but at what cost? Eliminating motor vehicles might cause more deaths due to difficulty getting to medical care or reduced ability to earn money and put food on the table or some other unforeseen consequence.
There are consequences to eliminating firearms. Not all of them can be predicted and not all of them are favorable. The leftist cry to ban guns makes them FEEL GOOD, but the real question is what actually DOES GOOD.
GoneWithTheWind: If we outlaw cars (all motor vehicles), for example we could save tens of thousands of lives.
Good example. Instead of just accepting that people die in car accidents, society has worked to reduce the risk, including everything from speed limits to seat belts to better designs.
If you don't take some action, it means that any single individual can cause hundreds of casualties at any time. That would leave BillH's solution, people cowering indoors, avoiding crowds.
mike m: There are trade offs everywhere.
Sure there are. Cars offer an enormous benefit, but even then society has worked to reduce the risk.
mike m: There are consequences to eliminating firearms.
Possibly, but there are various middle grounds available, such as reducing the effective fire rate.
Speed limits!!! In fact the trucking lobby has lobbied for and raised the speed limits in most states. I drive a lot all over the country and 75mph and 80 mph are common but rarely safe. IF safety was the primary factor 18 wheelers would be restricted to 55 mph and the right lane. A 80,000 lb truck requires up to 4 times the stopping distance of a 4000 lb car.
"If you don't take some action, it means that any single individual can cause hundreds of casualties at any time."
And if you do take some action it also means that any single individual can cause hundreds of casualties at any time. Guns are outlawed in Chicago and the gangs there kill 700 a year. All of them broke the law easily to do that. The laws being suggested will NOT stop any of this but will persecute law abiding people ONLY..
I do have a suggestion: Declare that since there is a 2nd amendment all state and local laws affecting guns are invalid and only federal laws will apply. THEN eliminate all existing and confusing/conflicting federal laws and replace them with a few (4 or 5) easily understood and effective laws that will benefit the country while at the same time not infringing on our civil rights.
I do not trust our politicians. I truly believe that the left/Democrats are preparing for a far left/communist style authoritarian takeover and most/many Republicans are either naively complicit or knowingly accepting of this "inevitable" direction of our government. I also believe that about 30% of the U.S. population agree with me AND that they will become much more vocal and "activist" in the face of a coup/takeover/2nd amendment attack then the naive 70% will. The left is taking us to a state of civil war for their own political gain and that is a threat to our republic that cannot be ignored.
#3.1.8.1
GoneWithTheWind
on
2017-10-04 10:46
(Reply)
GoneWithTheWind: In fact the trucking lobby has lobbied for and raised the speed limits in most states.
That's right. There ARE speed limits, along with seat belts, air bags, and cars designed for survivability. Society has made trade-offs between safety and efficiency and economic value.
GoneWithTheWind: Guns are outlawed in Chicago and the gangs there kill 700 a year.
Turns out that the U.S. doesn't have internal border controls, and the vast majority of the guns used by criminals in Chicago come from states with lax gun control.
GoneWithTheWind: Declare that since there is a 2nd amendment all state and local laws affecting guns are invalid and only federal laws will apply.
How will this reduce the risk of a mass-casualty attack such as the recent event in Las Vegas?
“the vast majority of the guns used by criminals in Chicago come from states with lax gun control.”
That might well be true, but it proves the point that laws don’t work. We passed laws against harmful drugs and we have now reached epidemic levels of illegal drug use. Yet I cannot even by a simple pseudoephedrine pill to ease my cold symptoms. This “unintended” consequence is merely an example of the many unintended and very harmful results from most anti-gun laws. They generally do not stop the lawless but trap the law abiding.
“How will this reduce the risk of a mass-casualty attack such as the recent event in Las Vegas?”
IT WON’T!!! YOU CAN’T!!! All you can do is use these crises to pass laws intended to further a far left authoritarian agenda. There are no laws you can pass that will prevent a crazy person from killing others. This has been going on since before recorded history when only rocks and clubs were weapons.
GoneWithTheWind: That might well be true, but it proves the point that laws don’t work.
Well, they don't work very well when there is no way to prevent the movement of weapons into Chicago.
GoneWithTheWind: We passed laws against harmful drugs and we have now reached epidemic levels of illegal drug use.
Not all laws are so problematic as those associated with addiction. The current opioid addiction epidemic was fueled by legal prescriptions.
GoneWithTheWind: IT WON’T!!! YOU CAN’T!!!
As this sort of attack can be endlessly replicated, it means that BillH's solution is the only thing left. The end of gatherings of people, virtually the end of city streets.
GoneWithTheWind: There are no laws you can pass that will prevent a crazy person from killing others.
The issue here is one of scale. One person can cause hundreds of casualties. According to you, America is helpless in the face of this problem.
“…there is no way to prevent the movement of weapons into Chicago.”
Just as there is no way to prevent the movement of weapons into the country. If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. That is only one of the fatal flaws of the gun control advocates.
“Not all laws are so problematic as those associated with addiction.”
Sure, speeding laws are universally obeyed, right? The dishonest, the criminal, the scammers are simply not going to let laws get in their way. Let’s just pass a law against mass murder!
“this sort of attack can be endlessly replicated”
Of course it can. It can be even if guns are outlawed. Most people are good and would never do this. There are a million ways to kill a lot of people. But the Democrats/neo-left/Marxists ONLY want to ban guns. They aren’t doing that to save lives, they want to destroy our republic.
“…America is helpless in the face of this problem”
That’s always been true. Every society is helpless in the face of committed people with the ability to devise ways to kill large numbers of citizens. Our only defense in most cases is to be armed and prepared to protect ourselves. When seconds count the police are only minutes away.
"That won't help with endless replications of the Las Vegas attack. "
Probably not but it does help millions of times a year and saves thousands of lives. It is critical that good law abiding people be allowed to protect and defend themselves.
"Then it's the end of public spaces in a helpless America."
That's your opinion/hype. Nothing has changed. Large gatherings have always offered an opportunity for large casualties. It is important to understand that this nut cas in Vegas was a pilot who had a plane at the local airport he could have easily used that airplane to crash into the crowd causing far more deaths and injuries. He could have used a stolen 18 wheeler. He could have used a gasoline truck set up with explosives. He could have used a red Camaro convertible. He could have used a golf car loaded with explosives. All of this has always been true. To over react to this because it suits some far left oppressive anti-constitutional agenda exposes you for what you are.
“How often were high-capacity rapid-fire guns required for civilian self-defence?”
You beg two questions. A new record for you. First of all it doesn’t matter because the 2nd amendment allows us to own and carry arms. So I could choose to carry a single shot shotgun/rifle or a multishot (which you prefer to call “high capacity”, rifle or shotgun. Or I could carry a hand gun which is available in single shot through 19 (and higher capacity) in semi auto or single or double action revolver . But this all misses the point because the gun you have is the gun you use to protect yourself or someone else when a bad guy threatens violence.
“There are strategies that can be implemented to reduce the incidence of truck attacks.”
There are strategies to reduce the incidence of gun violence too. I could cut gun violence in Chicago in half in six months by implementing stop and frisk, denial of bail to shooters and very long or life sentences for that crime. I suspect with a concerted effort of this I could reduce gun violence in Chicago as much as Rudy Giulani did in New York City. Why don’t the neo-left want to do that and save lives? Don’t they know that black lives matter???
GoneWithTheWind: First of all it doesn’t matter because the 2nd amendment allows us to own and carry arms.
There are limits on what arms are allowed, even under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has upheld bans on automatic weapons, for instance. And the Second Amendment can always be modified through the Amendment process.
More specifically, you claimed that guns save thousands of lives per year. It's reasonable to then ask how often were high-capacity rapid-fire guns required for civilian self-defence.
GoneWithTheWind: I could cut gun violence in Chicago in half in six months by implementing stop and frisk
So you would violate the Fourth Amendment, but hold the Second Amendment to be without limitations.
“It's reasonable to then ask how often were high-capacity rapid-fire guns required for civilian self-defence.”
I suppose but it will be a meaningless answer. You use the gun you have to save your life or someone else’s life. If I lived in Alaska I would carry a 44 magnum revolver and a 8 shot shotgun with slugs when I was out in the wilderness. If I lived in a city I would carry a small revolver or semi-auto handgun.
“So you would violate the Fourth Amendment, but hold the Second Amendment to be without limitations.”
Interesting how the constitution suddenly seems more important to you now! I would wager that 100% of the 10,000 gun laws on the books today are unconstitutional. Simple as that. It is almost impossible to pass a law that opposes an inalienable right that cannot be infringed. No shades of grey there! But stop and frisk vs the 4th amendment, very, very grey. Not to mention it actually saves lives!!!
GoneWithTheWind: You use the gun you have to save your life or someone else’s life.
Sure. You might use an anti-tank weapon if that is all you had on hand, but it certainly wouldn't be considered a reasonable requirement for self-defence.
GoneWithTheWind: Interesting how the constitution suddenly seems more important to you now!
We're generally philosophical, not political, but tend to conservatism in that we think that change should be moderated, that rapid change can lead to unintended consequences, and that traditional institutions and mores should not be dispensed with without much aforethought.
The U.S. Constitution is a fundamental structure of American government, has been largely successful over history, and has been flexible enough to bend as necessary. The Constitution may be somewhat dated, but radical change is nearly always more dangerous than the disease.
GoneWithTheWind: I would wager that 100% of the 10,000 gun laws on the books today are unconstitutional.
Such laws have withstood court challenges. That doesn't mean the courts are infallible, but that's the nature of constitutional government. You agree to accept the results of the process, even if you complain about those results.
GoneWithTheWind: It is almost impossible to pass a law that opposes an inalienable right that cannot be infringed.
"but that's the nature of constitutional government. You agree to accept the results of the process, even if you complain about those results."
Not true. You are not obligated to obey unconstitutional laws. You may indeed be punished and go to prison for not obeying them but you have a responsibility to the constitution and not a political appointee judge. What we need is a new congress and a "term limit" on all federal positions including judges. We won't get a new congress because votes are bought with tax payer money now something that our founding fathers warned us about and is absolutely unconstitutional. So we will continue to have the best congress that money can buy and will continue down the toilet of inevitable destruction.
GoneWithTheWind: You are not obligated to obey unconstitutional laws.
If you don't think the law is constitutional, then you have recourse to the courts. If you lose in the courts, then you have to conform or be subject to legal sanction. That IS the constitutional system.
GoneWithTheWind: you have a responsibility to the constitution and not a political appointee judge
You can't say you support the U.S. Constitution while ignoring Article III.
Bird Dog: Why don't we let markets determine rates?
With fiat money, the money supply is arbitrary. As an economy expands, the money supply has to increase in order to maintain a similar value. If the money supply expands too slowly, it leads to deflation, and investment contracts. If the money supply expands too quickly, it leads to inflation, and in the extreme, a loss of confidence in the currency. Markets are certainly involved, but there can be no pure market in an arbitrary currency that has no intrinsic value.
So why not use a commodity currency? Once upon a time in merrie old England, a pound sterling £ meant an actual pound of silver. Someone worth ten thousand pounds was a very rich person indeed. Nowadays, that wouldn't even be a year's salary for an ordinary bloke, but no one expects to be paid in tens-of-thousands of pounds of silver, but rather in fiat currency that can be exchanged for smart phones and central heating.
As for the low inflation the U.S. is experiencing, keep in mind that the U.S. is still the center of a great trading empire, but with an economy that has been working under capacity since the Great Recession. While technology is certainly a moderating influence on inflation, the money supply and confidence in the fiat currency remain important factors.
"Pew: COVERING PRESIDENT TRUMP IN A POLARIZED MEDIA ENVIRONMENT"
Summary: We are having trouble covering Trump with a pillow until he stops moving. And our spell on the public isn't working like it used to so they are noticing the pillow.
Before Obama I used to buy a cheap six pack of beer for six dollars and change. That six pack now goes for nine dollars and change. But according to the government, there's no inflation.
The electric car has been the car of the future for the past century and will be the car of the future for the next century too.
Re: No Inflation? Technology May Have Left it Back in the 20th Century
Any time you start hearing somebody talk about how things have fundamentally changed and how history doesn't matter, get some popcorn ready because you're about to see somebody get masticated in the posterior.
I remember years ago canceling my Forbes subscription when they fired their one "lone whacko" columnist (and I sure do wish I could remember his name) who kept insisting internet company stock prices were insane and you should get out of the market when it was Forbes' official position that history no longer mattered and P/E ratios were a thing of the past when it came to companies like Webvan, Dr. Koop, and Pets.com and all these other multi-billion dollar waves of the future. One guy knew a bubble when he saw it, everybody else at Forbes kept scoffing at the idea that the bubble was indeed a bubble.
Sad about Tom Petty. classic rocker, classic rock. 66. Carpe diem.