Jump to content
Carol the Dabbler

The Political Thread

Recommended Posts

How long more until gun control is needed?

Eta: I phrased it not accurately. It should be 'how long more until he thinks gun control is needed?'

If you're referring to the person who I think you're referring to, the answer would be until there is a president who has the balls to do something. Speaking about America and the 2nd amendment, due to the fact that America refuses to do anything about gun regulation, amnesty international issued a warning to potential tourists and visitors NOT to go to public places and that is the sad reality we live in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2019 at 10:31 PM, Arcadia said:

I believe "the right to bear arms" refers to  the kinds of weapons available at the time the words were written. I think the Founding Fathers would be horrified to learn we now use it as an excuse to permit the use of weapons of mass destruction.

I've given this matter some thought today, and I think we basically agree, assuming you're not literally talking about flintlocks and muskets.  I would say that the modern equivalents are pistols, shotguns, and rifles, including semi-automatics.

(I also assume you're using the term WMD figuratively here.  I don't think anyone is using the Second Amendment to justify private ownership of things that even governments are discouraged from possessing.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I've given this matter some thought today, and I think we basically agree, assuming you're not literally talking about flintlocks and muskets.  I would say that the modern equivalents are pistols, shotguns, and rifles, including semi-automatics.

(I also assume you're using the term WMD figuratively here.  I don't think anyone is using the Second Amendment to justify private ownership of things that even governments are discouraged from possessing.)

Yep, and yep. Except that an assault rifle has no other purpose than to cause maximum harm to the maximum number of people in the shortest time possible, so in that sense, the term WMD fits, does it not? I wouldn't apply that term to a hunting rifle, though. Even though I hate those, too.

15 hours ago, besleybean said:

Isn't that the guy BC played in that Brexit movie? Now that I think on it, the movie made the same point, didn't it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Cummings is the guy.


I think WMDs are an official term for chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.


"to cause maximum harm to the maximum number of people in the shortest time possible" would also apply to flintlocks and muskets, or even to a bow and arrows in the times they were invented. Just saying. ;)

Plus: the number of people coming together in a mall, or a railway station, or even on a street in a big city today, in the times of the Founding Fathers were only a case when two armies stood on a battlefield.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
5 hours ago, J.P. said:

I think WMDs are an official term for chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.

Something like that, yes -- I couldn't find any hard-and-fast definition, possibly because people keep coming up with new WMDs, or new uses for formerly "harmless" items.

5 hours ago, J.P. said:

"to cause maximum harm to the maximum number of people in the shortest time possible" would also apply to flintlocks and muskets, or even to a bow and arrows in the times they were invented.

Remember the scene at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the ape-man first thinks of an old bone as something to clobber his enemies with?  The envelope keeps expanding -- with human assistance, of course.  So the tricky thing is to interpret existing laws in a way that's relevant today.

5 hours ago, J.P. said:

... the number of people coming together in a mall, or a railway station, or even on a street in a big city today....

*shudder*  I'm not an agoraphobe by any stretch of the imagination, but there are certain extreme situations that set off my alarm bells, so I avoid them.  Those enormous stadiums that they're building today are one example -- a crowd of thousands, no, probably tens of thousands, all within view of each other.  And I was once in a crowded downtown mall (literally wall-to-wall people) that made me (and my party) so uncomfortable that we changed our minds about eating there.

That's one downside of "smart growth," I think, increased vulnerability to nutcases with any sort of weapon.  A simple knife or razor blade could have done considerable damage -- including multiple deaths -- in that mall.  And an arsonist could have done even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy with a razor blade could be tackled and caught within seconds in a busy mall, and an arsonist doesn't get to pick his targets. (Plus most (all?) big malls have fire suppressant equipment.) Just sayin'.

I think there is something empowering about being able to shoot people that doesn't exist with other killing methods. Yet we continue to make guns easy to obtain. Insanity.

Quote

So the tricky thing is to interpret existing laws in a way that's relevant today.

 

Or create new laws to fit the existing situation. Cars didn't originally come with seat belts, but try to buy one without them now. That didn't happen because the auto industry suddenly grew anxious about our safety; it was legislated. 

And the founding fathers may not have imagined automatic guns, but they were wise enough to realize that times change, and laws need to change with them. They built the mechanism right into the Constitution; it's called Article Five. Hell, we used to have the Constitutional right to own slaves. Those laws didn't need to be reinterpreted, they needed to be changed.

Sorry if my tone is bitter but this topic really tees me off. I apologize if I'm offending.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a hot-button topic, for sure, and one we're not likely to settle here.

Shall we move on to something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what happens when you try to please everybody without offending anybody. You end up offending everybody without pleasing anybody. 😄

This topic came up today at my Monday get-together, and I swear I was not the one who raised it. But our little group are all horrified by the love affair some people have with guns.
We are simply incapable of understanding it. Quite frankly, my belief is that if you think you "need" one, that's enough reason right there to make sure you don't get one. (The person being discussed said he "had" to have a gun because a "war" is coming and he "has" to "defend" himself.... This is the same person who said "All news is fake news except Fox News" and he knows that to be true because "Fox News said so." And he said some other stereotypically right-wing-white-male stupid stuff as well, but by that time my blood was boiling so high I couldn't hear anymore. Good thing I didn't have a gun on me.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so glad that I feel safe enough with my brass knuckle, insect repellent and coat hanger. I'd prefer fair fight and boring grocery, school and cinema trips.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Arcadia said:

That's what happens when you try to please everybody without offending anybody. You end up offending everybody without pleasing anybody.

How true, how true!  As Rick Nelson said, "Can't please everyone, so ya gotta please yourself."  (Within reason, of course.)

22 hours ago, Arcadia said:

my belief is that if you think you "need" [a gun], that's enough reason right there to make sure you don't get one

You do have a valid point in some cases, I think.  But then again, there are other cases where I'm sympathetic, such as one of Mom's home caregivers, who also worked in some rough neighborhoods, often on the night shift.  She finally got a concealed-carry permit and bought a cute little pistol.  Don't think she ever actually used it, but peace of mind is certainly worth something.  (And she never brought it into Mom's house.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, obviously a lot of it is in the attitude you bring with you. I'd have zero peace of mind if a gun were anywhere near me; I'd be terrified it would accidentally go off, or something. It just makes no sense to me to be near a deadly device, I don't care what kind of safety features it has. Why take the risk? So says the person who keeps dozens of flammable art supplies in her closet. :smile: 

On a completely different (I hope) subject … I just learned about this "Real ID" thing. WTF? How is this the first time I've heard about it? They're now going to require it, or a PASSPORT for DOMESTIC flights??????? Even if you're a bona fide US citizen?

The terrorists have won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I just learned about this "Real ID" thing. WTF? How is this the first time I've heard about it? They're now going to require it, or a PASSPORT for DOMESTIC flights??????? Even if you're a bona fide US citizen?

They can't really just take your word that you're a citizen, though.  Anybody could *say* that they're a citizen (or green card holder, or citizen of another country).

I guess the point of the real ID is that you'll have actual proof of who you are.  A regular driver's license is a good step above a library card in that respect, but when I got my first license (many years ago), I don't believe they asked for a birth certificate.  They may have just asked me what my name was, or asked me to bring something that had been mailed to me (as proof of my address).  The rules for getting one's very first license may have become more stringent since then, but all my subsequent licenses (in various states) have simply used the preceding license as proof of identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russians will have hacked into the database within 5 years. And figure out how to create a fake version in four. Gee, I feel so much safer now, knowing all those illegal immigrants aren't able to board an airplane. :blowmytop:

And yes, I'm being facetious. To some extent. This smacks of every dystopian novel ever written. Damn, I hate it when the pessimists are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Arcadia said:

The Russians will have hacked into the database within 5 years.

You really think it'll take 'em that long?   ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you're right, they're probably in it already. 😉 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, on the "real ID" thingy..

We have ID on top of passport. Passport is mostly used for international travelling, while ID (which requires birth certificate etc to obtain, higher status than driving license, in fact, that ID one of the requirements to obtain driving license and others like credit card etc) is required for domestic travelling. I remember passport can be used for both too. These rules applicable for flights since I can remember.

However, for land or sea travel, I don't believe it's necessary to show ID. 

Is it what you guys mean by your new 'real ID?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it's something like that, yes.  It generally seems to be a fancy driver's license, issued by a state government.  I presumably won't need to decide whether to get one till my license is up for renewal in a few years.  Meanwhile, I have both a regular license and a passport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, from what I've read, that sounds EXACTLY like it. And apparently we're required to have one for domestic air travel starting next year, unless, like Carol, you happen to have a passport. I think I'll stick to railways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I think I'll stick to railways.

Railways?  Oh, right, we used to have those....

Seriously, Alex and I were thinking of taking a train from Indianapolis to Chicago a few years ago, but found that there's at most one a day, and it leaves (and comes back) in the middle of the night.  Not exactly customer-friendly!  I think it's basically a run between Chicago and somewhere on the east coast, and we just happen to be en route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to travel by train if there were better options available.

I generally think it’s a good idea for everyone to have a passport.  You never know when you may need to leave the country on a moment’s notice.  :P  Seriously though, I have found a passport to be really helpful, even just for verifying my identity on official documents so I don’t have to dig out 3 other proof papers to make up for it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arggghhhh….. a12sreq.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arrrre you okay?  *pat pat*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, she's fine, she merely has a hard time adjusting to changes.

You'd think that someone who has encountered terrifying toilets in Cambodia would be more resilient, wouldn't you?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.