Guard Dog

Give up our guns? That is what you call a compromise?

It IS insurmountable. If you would like to understand why re-read the first two paragraphs I wrote in post 218.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/south-africa-a-country-at-war-as-rate-soars-to-nearly-49-a-day GD I have extensive experience with illegal gun ownership due to the high murder rate in SA, also when you said earlier you think the world must get stuffed that is the expected response from most gun owners in the USA. Its a knee-jerk reaction because you think this is about other countries telling you about your own Constitution and what you can and cant do No its not about that and I always felt people like Piers Morgan went about it the wrong way, can I ask you 3 quick questions · Forget Hilary Clinton was pushing this, I can understand how this must be annoying because its like she is pandering. · When you say you refuse to give up any guns is this something you have always believed?Think back to when you were in your twenties? How come now you suddenly have all these guns……do you not think the NRA has convinced you this is a Constitutional mandate? Maybe they said something like “ if we give in to this it’s the beginning of the erosion of our core US values …. · If there was NO chance of the Fed government ever attacking some stated would you give up some of your guns then? First off, I have nothing to do with the NRA. I do not send them money, I do not read their magazines or pay attention to them in anyway. Suggesting that people think the way they do because the NRA is telling them to is one of the most condescending things I have read on this board... ever I think. Jesus Christ do you really believe our commitment to individual liberty is the product of us succumbing to propaganda? Do you really think Americans are that mindless? The NRA did not convince me that firearm ownership is a right. My parents and grammar school teachers did that when they taught me how to read. James Madison did that when he wrote the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments of the US Constitution (which I quoted from in my previous post) and I read it. The Unites States Supreme Court did that in DC v. Heller when they asserted the 2nd Amendment did guarantee an "individual right" to own a firearm. I bought my first firearm when I was 21, the youngest legal age to buy one. It was a Ruger Blackhawk .44M. I still have it to this day. I have bought many more since. Different guns for different purposes. Some for hunting, some for target shooting, some for personal defense. One because it was an antique and looks great mounted on my office wall. To answer your last question, as it stands right now there is virtually no chance the US Government and it's citizens will ever take up arms against each other so no I would not give up my private property if virtually no change became definitely no chance. As I posted before, it's not about that anyway. That is one small part of a big whole.

I'm curious Bruce. What firearms do you suggest should be banned?

Let me give you a little insight into the psychology of the average American. We do not give a flying monkey f--k what the world thinks of how we govern ourselves at home. When it comes to what we do abroad that is certainly a consideration but on our own soil we are sovreign. The government that we all agreed to as outlined in the US Constitution is enjoined thusly in Amendment 2 "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The day that is rendered meaningless the entire thing becomes meaningless and there is no law nor guranteed rights for anyone if they can be taken away. As for the implication that armed opposition to the US Government might someday be necessary, you seem to believe that is an irrational idea. Has any government ever become a threat to the safety, freedom, and well being of it's citizens? I think we all know the answer. But that isn't even the real reason. Why and how somone exercises a right is not a thing that ever needs to be explained to anyone.

Gun control is a huge issue with me. I oppose just about every restriction on firearms ownership. I realize that is a difficult thing to understand but follow me on this. The left is always calling for "reasonable" restrictions. We do have reasonable restrictions already. It is illegal to own fully automatic weapons (without a license that is exceedingly difficult and expensive to get). It is illegal for minors or people with felony convictions to buy or own guns. It is illegal to buy a gun for someone else. It is illegal to own a weapon larger than .50 caliber or full jacketed or explosive, or phosphorus tipped ammunition. There are mandatory waiting periods in most states and criminal background checks in every state. My own state has a limit on how many firearms can be purchased in a 30 day period. These are all reasonable restrictions. And the Democrats would tell us they are not enough. There is something I'd say every gun owner understands (at least I do and every other gun owner I know does) that the ultimate goal of the Democrats is not regulation. Every "reasonable" restriction begets another, and another, and another. And every one is a segue to the ultimate goal of prohibition followed with confiscation. So many wonder why we oppose each new "reasonable" regulation it is because we are not dealing with a honest partner in the US Government. They are not looking out for the safety and well being of the citizens. They are using tragedy as a lever in a cynical pursuit of their own goals. When every step leads us closer to the end it only makes sense to fight like mad hell against each new step. And so we do. That was just my $.02 on the general subject. Now as to Longknifes point on Assault Weapons Bans, the problem is this: We are talking about banning guns and making legally owned private property illegal because of how it looks. That is it. Semi automatic firearms are not illegal. I own a Marlin .223 semi-auto rifle. Do you know what the practical difference between that rifle (which has never been or even suggested to be banned) and an AR-15 (which has been)? The AR-15 has a detachable magazine. That is it. The use practically the same ammunition, fire at the same rate, and if the AR-15 has a 10 round clip can fire those 10 shots in the exact same time. But the Marlin looks like a hunting rifle. The AR-15 looks like an assault rifle because it has the plastic grips, carrying handle, flash suppressor, rear charging handle and detachable magazine. All cosmetic things. It is utterly asinine to take someone's private property away from them because it "looks" scary. Now if they want to limit magazine sizes for weapons that have detachable magazines, I could go along with that. Provided it was done in a practical way. But banning or confiscating the property of people who have broken no laws because of the illegal actions of someone who did? No. No chance in hell. Hillary is unequivocally pro-gun control and that is another reason she will never get my vote

I grew some jalapenos in the garden. They are finally ripe so I cut up a few in some mac & cheese. Tasty! And very... very hot.

Corruption? Bribery? Move along son, nothing to see here. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ad3c483d59c9463e9a52ef4bc00351e0/firms-paid-clinton-speeches-have-us-govt-interests

You are correct Sir. The biggest error in impeaching Clinton is it might have started a tit-for-tat cycle of you impeached my guy now I'll impeach yours. It didn't (thank God) but that kind of thing is happening on a smaller scale.

I bought "The Martian" and watched it last night. I really enjoyed it. It was a pretty close adaption of the book.

The FBI, the IRS, or any other government agency is not, on it's own, an agent of good or evil. They are tools in the hands of the current administration. As mist of you are aware under Barack Obama the IRS has been ruthlessly suppressing and harassing PACs that are opposed to his administrations agenda. The IRS is not supposed to be political but beginning with Richard Nixon in the 60's it started to become a political tool to use against journalists. The in the 90's Bill Clinton weaponized it and used it to harass political pundits like Rush Limbaugh & Bill O'Reilly. But Obama is the first President who oversaw it's use as a tool to suppress political activity and speech. Now Obama ally Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Obama's own handpicked AG Loretta Lynch want to use the justice department to imprison people who deny "man made" climate change. So Obama is drifting from suppressing free speech to punishing it. Now the IRS, the Justice Department etc are not evil. But they are being used to DO evil. You know the thing that bothers me the most is how many Americans are ok with this because Obama is "their" guy. But a precedent has been set now. If Trump becomes the next President the left wing groups might suddenly find the bottle pointed at them. IMO that would be no less evil (although is would be poetic justice).

I just heard on the way home. Very sad. For my money the Superbowl halftime show he did a few years ago was the best one ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NN3gsSf-Ys

Yeah, Jerk.

The two different personalities most folks have are 1) Screwing around and 2) Not screwing around. Obviously (to me at least) my last two posts fall in the the former category. If someone posts something ludicrous or even mean sounding it was probably meant as sarcastic or even dark humor. There are genuine a------s around but not many of them. Most of the time it's meant to be funny. I realize that is hard to pick up on a text forum, especially one in english if it isn't your first language. I remember when I was working in Mexico I didn't get a lot of the jokes because my spanish wasn't 100% and I spoke mainly Castillan spanish not latin spanish. So my advice is don't worry too much about it. When you're having a serious discussion you generally get serious responses but there is a lot of humor in the thread (really is there anything more preposterously humorous than this election) so keep in mind not all responses are meant to be taken seriously. And if there is a miscommunication don't sweat it. I seriously doubt anyone actually gets mad over anything the read here. At least they shouldn't. By coming to this board you are expecting to get a wide range of opinions. Heck that's why I keep coming back 12 years after finding it. If I wanted to hear my own opinions parroted back to me I'll go in my bathroom and shout at the wall or something. Heck I get in disagreements here all the time and I still like and respect everyone here. I've had heated exchanges with Calax, Leferd, Mkreu and others not here any more and it doesn't matter. They are all still good dudes. My advice is this: Don't take anything personally. Don't ever think you are being insulted. It is almost never meant that way. If you think it is it's probably one of those miscommunications I was talking about. There is nothing wrong with being the devil's advocate. I can't even count the number of times I've argued a position I didn't even agree with just for the sake of forum chatter. The point is not to convince anyone of anything, the point is to enjoy the discussion. Don't expect to change anyone's mind. Calax and I have been talking politics here for years. I haven't moved him any closer right, he hasn't moved me any closer left. But that really wasn't the point. I know what he thinks, he knows what i think. Hey along the way someones opinion about something might actually change. I'd like to think my posting here might at least have explained the libertarian political philosophy to some folks even if they didn't buy in. And of they did that's great but it wasn't ever the objective. The discussion itself is always the objective. Just have fun. Just enjoy the discussion. that's all it's really about.

Harriet Tubman is going to be on the US $20 bill. Not a bad choice. You have to hand it to her for courage. Imagine escaping slavery only to turn around and go back and help others slaves escape. She could have been hanged, or worse if caught. I figured it would be Susan B Anthony but she already had her turn.

Obviously Volo, she is going to win the election. But Volo its not nice to call people idiots just because they support a different political view than you, its also untrue and libelous I would support and vote Clinton if I was an US citizen...does this make me an idiot ? It is neither untrue nor libelous to say that Hillary Clinton supporters are idiots. First of all idiot is a subjective term and absent a universally accepted definition the actual meaning of the word is the prerogative of the user. Therefore it cannot be libelous because the pejorative cannot be untrue in the subjective sense. If he had said all Hillary Clinton supporters were child molesters THAT would be libelous. On that note accusing Volo of libel is itself libelous since obviously the underlying fact that the charge is predicated on, that Volo called someone a thing that was a lie is itself a lie. You might want to get a lawyer Bruce. Okay so suggesting you can't sue someone in the USA if you get called an idiot? How is idiot subjective....surly this is a negative word? First of all Volo is in Canada. They do things differently. They have this reputation for being nice and well mannered but all that means is the say "Have a nice day" after the f--k your s--t all up. The definition of idiot is someone who is stupid. The definition of stupid is someone who is lacking intelligence. Volo has an IQ of 240 therefore almost everyone is technically less intelligent than he is. That means 1) It is subjectively true that if a person of greater intelligence refers to a person of lesser intelligence as an idiot it is not a lie. 2) Subjectivity and negativity are not mutually exclusive. Bruce I've got a good buzz going and 3/4 of a liter of fine Kentucky single barrel sour mash on my desk. You wanna play word games I can do this all night!

Obviously Volo, she is going to win the election. But Volo its not nice to call people idiots just because they support a different political view than you, its also untrue and libelous I would support and vote Clinton if I was an US citizen...does this make me an idiot ? It is neither untrue nor libelous to say that Hillary Clinton supporters are idiots. First of all idiot is a subjective term and absent a universally accepted definition the actual meaning of the word is the prerogative of the user. Therefore it cannot be libelous because the pejorative cannot be untrue in the subjective sense. If he had said all Hillary Clinton supporters were child molesters THAT would be libelous. On that note accusing Volo of libel is itself libelous since obviously the underlying fact that the charge is predicated on, that Volo called someone a thing that was a lie is itself a lie. You might want to get a lawyer Bruce.

Oh, my bad Looks like someone needs their geek membership revoked! If it were some obscure, crappy show like one of the stargates you get a pass. But dammit Star Trek, especially DS9, references are supposed to be picked up. It is a prerequisite to remain a member in good standing here!

Happy Birthday Calax!

I'd prefer a "none of the above" option but that would be the clear winner. Chalk up a vote for the Donald.

Believe it or not I'm actually reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I've been meaning to get around to this one and I saw it in a used book store this weekend. I am a christian and nothing I read here has changed my mind about that. He does make a interesting argument about the evolution of complex systems that refutes the idea that a "fine tuned machine" requires an complex design process. From a theoretical standpoint at least. He is approaching it from from the standpoint of theoretical physics however without any consideration of core engineering principles (which is not his area of expertise, I get that). Although his theory taken at face value (and ignoring that fact that it cannot be taken at face value because it does not match with the second core principle of engineering; maintainability) is a passable hypothesis on how a complex machine can operate and expand by itself without outside influence. However, the notion does no preclude the existence of God. In other words even accepting the universe was not created by God does not mean God does not exist. The rest of the book is really an exposition on how terrible religion is because it drives people to do terrible things. The thing if people were not killing on the name of God wouldn't they be killing in the name of something else? He hits the barbarity of the crusades pretty hard but it seems he failed to consider that although the crusades were, on the surface, about retaking the Holy Land from the Muslims they began because the Muslims shut down the "silk roads" cutting off trade to the east. In the end isn't everything really about money? Once sea routes to Asia were established no one gave a f--k who controlled the Holy Land anymore.

Gary Johnson is meh and sadly the defacto nominee, which shows to a degree how flaccid the actually Libertarian party is. And without Nader the Green party is less than flaccid. Even though there's probably more people who ideologically align with both parties now than there were in recent past elections, I expect them to pull fewer numbers than in recent past elections. Their candidates basically just suck. You know the sad thing is in an era where one party thinks it's perfectly ok to use the military to kill people in other countries with no declaration of war and the other thinks is perfectly ok to use it to kill americans with no due process there is a real opportunity for the party of "mind you own business and leave everyone alone" to get some traction. But they just can't seem to do it.

Well the latter is getting my vote so that one.