Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
10b4me
Boulder climber
Somewhere on 395
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 01:00am PT
|
Pretty much sums up the whole wingnut vs reality scenario
pot calling the kettle black, joe
get over it. go out and climb, oh wait. . . . . . .
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 01:01am PT
|
Check out a Marine supporting my poon tang theory. It pops up at about 90 seconds in.
"Lack of pussy is the root of all global instability."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y_mXLYh_PA
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 01:02am PT
|
you may want to move up on your schedule a bit there ghost
Dude, when I moved to the big city back in '73 I gave all my guns away to a friend. It was almost 20 years later that I went to Germany for the M-to-F surgery. Not gun-related at all in my case.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 01:04am PT
|
Yep. I'm gonna flood this thread with the get more pussy theory.
Just think about it. Hell, religion leads to less pussy, so religion lends itself to more violence.
Get a horny girlfriend and save the world.
Either pussy or those psychedelic ponies that killed off the other thread....
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 01:53am PT
|
Wow Hedge you really have a thing about penis size.
In keeping with your criticisms of Ron, perhaps you should provide us with a link to a peer reviewed study which proves that men who support the right to responsible gun ownership actually have smaller penises??
I don't want to see some study which shows that a man could compensate for being deprived that way by liking guns, guys do lots of things to compensate for being unlucky in that way (buying Corvettes etc.,) I want to see real evidence which supports the broad generalizations you have been laying out here.
I won't hold my breath...
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 09:17am PT
|
I am not worried about the govt takeing my freedom. I got my guns to protect my freedom from the teabaggers.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 09:34am PT
|
Joe said:"I have no idea what that last sentence means - arsenals trump free speech, voting, and all the rest of the constitution?"
You should just re-read it, but I'll restate the point and talk slow for you. The clear point is I believe that the 2nd amendment is there to protect citizens from tyrany from the overlord class (making a joke and a point here with the word overlord). If you do some research you will find that subject hotly debated at the time, more than we can discuss here with a few quips and words. Here's Jefferson for example.
"When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. – Thomas Jefferson"
I agree: The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 09:57am PT
|
or a similar sediment: “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” – George Washington
So continue on with the "WHATS THAT MEAN WHAT THAT MEAN"....theme questioning the founders, or similar points....but hopefully there is something to quietly consider for you and others.
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 11:09am PT
|
I don't get it. Liberals think we'll never need to use guns.
... So why have them?
Why do cops have them?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 11:26am PT
|
We're talking Arsenal? I'm sooo pissed off that they traded Van Persie to Man U.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 11:28am PT
|
The constitution authorizes an army and navy, no mention of an air force. Scalia should declare the air force unconstitutional under strict construction. He is only a strict constructionist when it is convenient for his agenda
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 12:04pm PT
|
Very true Bruce... very true.
Unfortunately the corporate-government cancer seems to be in its final stages. When it all does fall apart, we'll see how absolutely meaningless all those slips of green paper are. The ones most of us worked all our lives for. For people without real skills, that's going to be a problem
Being well armed is just a tiny part of being prepared. A very tiny part.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 12:20pm PT
|
I don't agree with everything Ron Paul believes, but he seems to be an honest and sincere actual human being, unlike the recent crop of puppets we had in the elections.
From Ron:
The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free zones.
Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government “do something” to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don’t obey laws.
The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped.
While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings, I don’t agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.
Let’s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality. The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home. U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are children, albeit, of a different color.
Obviously I don’t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence.
Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches? We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided “security,” a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.
Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.
Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 12:49pm PT
|
Norton;
Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 12:53pm PT
|
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 12:58pm PT
|
Hehe,
I'm printing that one out Philo...
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 01:25pm PT
|
Could it be that you don't know what "civil" means?
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 01:46pm PT
|
For random mass killings the logical steps to take would be to take an exhaustive look at the killers' backgrounds and families and find common threads. Hipaa laws should be suspended for the killers. Every Dr. visit, every pharmacy script, detailed blood screening.
We already know there are substances that can absolutely induce psychosis and violent rage episodes. Why isn't that being followed up in any media outlet?
Because every mainstream media outlet relies heavily on pharma advertising. Because there is no real investigative journalism any longer on any topic. It's all about quick sound bites and playing people's emotions on devisive issues rather than getting real answers to problems.
So let's just exploit this tradgedy. Let's pass wide sweeping laws that just divide this deeply fractured society even farther.
We shouldn't look to our bloated morally and fiscaly bankrupt federal government or the NRA or to any other cancerous organization for solutions to our own problems.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 02:04pm PT
|
You guys....
You sit and whine about the 2nd amendment and a tyrannical government, while every keystroke we type, everywhere we go, everything we buy with plastic, everything you say on a cellphone, all are currently being gathered and stored thanks in large part due to the Patriot Act.
No way is there going to be a round up of millions of guns.
That info is the perfect tool if a tyrannical government popped up.
And nobody cares but the Electronic Frontiers Foundation and maybe the ACLU.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2012 - 02:26pm PT
|
Question for Crimpie:
The Wall Street Journal had an opinion piece today alleging that handgun murder rates in Great Britain doubled after Great Britain enacted handgun controls. Any truth to that?
Also, your comments about the complexity of determining cause and effect in law enforcement/crime interactions sound like it involves many of the same multicollinearity problems I encounter in econometric models. It also brings to mind a study one of my colleagues in grad school undertook to try to determine the optimal crime rate. The idea was to estimate marginal cost of crime, and the marginal rate of crime prevention from additional law enforcement expenditures.
His efforts didn't get very far because he could not establish a statistically significant causal relationship between law enforcement expenditures and crime reduction. Causation in the reverse direction, i.e. that an increase in crime results in increased law enforcement expenditures, was statistically significant. I'm sure there have been many such studies since 1976, when he started his, and I'd be curious about the results.
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!