This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Gun-Control Today; Fat-Control Tomorrow?
Leaving the highly sensitive topic of "gun-control" aside for the time being, one can't help but wonder if it isn't time that the US government, seemingly hell-bent on regulating virtually everything in its quest to prove (to itself?) that America's population can no longer be trusted with making any responsible decisions on it own (and in the process becoming even bigger), shouldn't be more focused on "fat-control" instead. Why? Because while guns may or may not kill people, the bottom line is that of the 32K or so death attributed to firearms, roughly 20K, or two thirds were suicides, meaning firearm-based homicides were 11,015 in 2010. Putting this number in perspective, every year some 935,000 Americans suffer a heart attack, and 600,000 people die from some form heart disease: 1 in every 4 deaths. Net result to society: the cost of coronary heart disease borne by everyone is $108.9 billion each year. And of all proximal factors contributing to heart disease, obesity and overweight is the main one. But of course one can't make a media spectacle out of 600,000 hospital wards where people quietly pass away, in many cases due to a lifetime of ill decisions relating primarily to food consumption. In fact, some estimate that obesity now accounts for one fifth of the total US health-care bill (the part of the budget which no amount of tax increase can offset). Which is why if the topic of gun-control has managed to promptly tear the country into two (or three, or more), just wait until fat-control (far more than the recent tepid overtures into this field such as Bloomberg's NYC sugary soda ban) rears its ugly head and sends the already polarized (and weaponized) US society into a state of agitated hyperflux.
Some useful observations on this topic from The Economist:
IN 1937 George Orwell suggested that “changes of diet” might be more important than “changes of dynasty or even of religion”. Now he is being proved right in a way he might not have expected. Having spent millennia worrying about not having enough food, mankind’s main concern is now eating too much (see our special report on obesity).
The story of human health in the past few decades is a broadly encouraging one. Life expectancy has increased—globally, by 12 years for women and 11 years for men from 1970 to 2010. But greater longevity means that people spend more years chronically ill (see article). Obesity makes things worse by raising the risk of diabetes, heart disease, strokes and some cancers. In much of the world, being too fat is now the single largest driver of sickness.
In 2008 obesity rates were nearly double those of 1980. One in three adults was overweight, with a body-mass index (BMI) of 25 or more (at least 77kg for a man 175cm tall); 12% were obese, with a BMI of at least 30. In America, ever the world leader, about two-thirds of adults were overweight in 2008. But Britain lumbered close behind, with six in ten too fat. The problem is not confined to rich countries. Thanks to economic growth, people around the world are eating more food. Workers burn fewer calories at their desks than in the fields. Even in China, one in four adults was too fat in 2008. In Brazil more than half were. Obesity rates in Mexico, Venezuela and South Africa matched those of America. The Pacific islands and Gulf states are home to some of the world’s fattest people.
For those (like this newspaper) who believe that the state should generally keep its nose out of people’s private affairs, obesity presents a quandary. “A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits,” Orwell pointed out; “an unemployed man doesn’t…You want to eat something a little bit tasty.” If people get great pleasure from eating more than is good for them, should they not be allowed to indulge themselves? After all, individuals bear the bulk of the costs of obesity, quite literally. They suffer at work, too: their wages are often lower and, in America, some employers also make fat workers pay more for health insurance.
Yet in most countries the state covers some or most of the costs of health care, so fat people raise costs for everyone. In America, for instance, a recent paper estimated that obesity was responsible for a fifth of the total health-care bill, of which nearly half is paid by the federal government. And there are broader social costs. The Pentagon says that obesity is shrinking its pool of soldiers. Obesity lowers labour productivity. And state intervention is justified where it saves people from great harm at little cost to themselves. Only zealots see seat-belt laws as an affront to personal liberty. Anti-smoking policies, controversial at first, are generally viewed as a success.
So which is it: state intervention? Or, as the Economist correctly asserts for once: individual liberties where people have no choice but to experience the consequences of one or more of their own wrong decisions? But what happens when the entire state is already broke from pre-funding generations of precisely these bad decisions, and there is nothing left in the state's piggy bank for those who wish to behave prudently and sensibly? The Economist has some further thoughts:
In the absence of a single big solution to obesity, the state must try many small measures. Governments, some of which already intervene a lot in the first few months of people’s lives, should ensure that parents are warned of the dangers of overfeeding their babies. Schools should serve nutritious lunches, teach children how to eat healthily and give them time to run around. Urban planners should make streets and pavements friendlier to cyclists and pedestrians. Taxing sugary fizzy drinks—which unlike fatty foods have no nutritional value—and limiting the size of the containers in which they can be sold may work. Philadelphia and New York, for example, have implemented a range of such policies, and have seen child-obesity rates dip ever so slightly.
There is a limit, however, to what the state can or should do. In the end, the responsibility and power to change lie primarily with individuals. Whether people go on eating till they pop, or whether they opt for the healthier, slimmer life, will have a bigger effect on the future of the species than most of the weighty decisions that governments make.
Just like in the sensitive issue of gun-control, there is no easy, or definitive answer when it comes to the world's most overweight nation. Perhaps, however, the best clue to what should happen comes from the WSJ's interview with the 107 year old Irving Khan, one of Wall Street's oldest investors and Ben Graham's research assistant, who made the following remark on unwholesome lifestyles: "Millions of people die every year of something they could cure themselves: lack of wisdom and lack of ability to control their impulses."
And that's really it. Sadly, the government, in its encroaching desire to become the world's nanny state par excellence, already believes it can offset everything else, including human stupidity and impulse control. That it can't will become very apparent in time, but only when everyone finally wakes up from the 150 year old dream that started with Bismarck's 'Welfare State' utopia, and sadly ends in bloodshed. With or without gun control.
»
- 34561 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
We need to ban cars. Cars kill.
meaning firearm-based homicides were 11,015 in 2010
If Drug Dealers killings, and Gang Bangers were removed from that #, it would be cut in HALF.
How many of those 11,015 homicides were caused by the guns in the hands of law enforcement?
NRA says if only the kids had been armed this tragedy needn't have happened.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-U. S. Constitution,
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
Clint Eastwood
I am in support of the NRA position on gun control.
William J. Clinton
Gun control means being able to hit your target.
Michael Badnarik
Gun control means control. It means control for the government and the government starts controlling the people.
Luke Scott
For target shooting, that's okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments.
-James Brady
Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave. -Andrew Fletcher, 1698
Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn't allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.
-Alexander Hope
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
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Wow, cuz you know, technology hasn't changed since the late 1700's.
2nd Amendment was written in a vastly different society with a different technology level/information culture. It can be updated for the betterment of all.
The deterrence of a 'well-armed populace' was certainly a factor in the thinking of the state; that is, before tanks, jet fighters, nuclear weapons, body armor, unmanned aerial vehicles, control of information to the masses, fiat finance and anything else the state has more access to than an individual or group of individuals. Given that, it's organizing on a social level, rather than individual arming that is more effective.
Please join us in the 21st century. It's not perfect, but we have running water and decent sanitation facilities.
And accordingly, the government should be in control of all modern advancements in communication.
I'm certainly not advocating control of all firearms, just sensible legislation.
off the subject, why the fuck isn't zero hedge covering obamas trip to hawaii? i want 10 minute updates!!
Feel free to turn your guns in.
Leave everyone else alone.
Did I say that? Or did you just have a knee-jerk reaction.
I've mentioned it elsewhere, but in the Julian Assange case, it isn't that fact that Ecuador is a military threat or that the embassy people are armed that prevents the UK from seizing him immediately. It's a social convention.
Individual arms are not a deterrent to state power.
Yes, I think you are right.
Do let us know how well your social conventions hold out in the coming years.
EDIT:
By the way, it is not the individual that is ever the threat. It is a group of united individuals that is the 'threat'.
See: Minutemen.
Any group of indivduals has to work under social conventions. That's what 'social' means, interaction with any other human being.
How did those individuals decide to become 'united' in the first place? It wasn't a spontaneous process. It was a social process.
Did they talk the British to death or shoot them?
Oh, those quippy quips!
As human beings, yes, the Minuteman did actually talk with each other and organize before fighting the British.
Before killing and maiming the British until they couldn't go on any longer, is what I think you meant to say?
"The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants."
Isoroku YamamotoThen we shall outlaw ants.
It couldn't hurt.....just sayin.
It seems odd to me that there are so many Pro NRA people here. I doesn't surprise me that there are pro guns and pro gold people however.
The NRA is known as one of the leading lobbyist organisations in the US though and ZH has always been a leader in showing the evils of the lobbyists. Do people think they aren't doing it for profits? that all they care about it civil rights? Yeah, and the church is just a charity organisation too!
Odd. I haven't seen anyone here going Pro-NRA.
What would make you say that? Furthermore, what does the NRA have to do with anything?
Yeah, why were "we" waiting for them to comment on that school shooting? I didn't get it. Why did they comment on the school shooting?
It's funny how the human brain works...in one sentence you say the NRA is a lobbying organization (connoting all the "evil" that the word lobbying entails)...then, you admit it's a Civil Rights organization.
LOL, I don't think we won a single battle until Germantown, and that wasn't a battle, we just sneeked right up on them redcoats.
We won the old fashioned way, terrorizing the populace that wouldn't play ball with us, and just plain wearing out the enemy.
This kid's point is everything's changed. My point is nothing ever changes. In the past, the political pamphlet was the social media. Nothing has changed, especially people.
If the gun control people wanted to refine their argument and say the prohibition for a felon to own a gun is foolish (like G. Gordon Liddy was going to run amuck for his felony conviction) and a more specific prohibition for people with a specific risk factor, such as a wife beater, or a history of gun violence, hey now you're talking, but it will never happen. They are zealots and just want to ban guns in a mistaken belief that will keep us safe or a misplaced trust in the government.
Was it George Washington who terrorized the populace or was it the Redcoats? If the Founding Fathers were in fact terrorizing the majority of the populace as you claim, why would they want the 2nd Amendment to arm the very populace they were terrorizing? Freedom requires the government to fear the people.
"Now that's funny, I don't care who you are"
Odd. You describe social in the governmental context where treaty dictates process, yet use it in the peer context here.
Where are you going with this?
I'm saying how if you subscribe to the belief that the government has the potential to 'go after you' then you should know that arming oneself isn't going to deter them from that.
I think you're saying that the people who drone strike schools in asia, ritualistically use DU munitions, are about to put thousands of drones over your head, is facing an economic and social collapse, and gives less than a shit about you or your privacy can give us 'sensible legislation' (regarding anything).
I'm saying this is a bit silly.
'sensible legislation'
Have a little bit of what he's smoking and it will all start to make sense.
+1000 Why would the utter fools who are destorying the economy be able to draft ANY kind of law to "Make people 'safe'". Whoever beleives that has shit for brains.
How well did all those fighter planes, tanks, missiles and bombs work in Vietnam? Try that on 100 million armed Americans who can cut off the food, water and fuel to the government and see how well it goes.
How did that social networking do when Stalin killed 30 million people or Hitler killed 15 million people?
Try that and the Government will inform the masses via their favourite MSM that those attempting this disruption are terrorists, "bent on destroying your American way of life".
Worked just fine for Goebbels - and it'll work just as well for the Government of the day.
Tell the masses that their way of life is threatened - and you've seen just what happens in the past week.
Tell 'em that their TV / YouTube / Mobile Phone access may be inpaired and the Government will be guaranteed a multimillion army to do their bidding.
That would be the greatest gift to the rebels ever imagined.
One of the problems of today is the inability to differentiate who is on what side.
Immediately upon your events, the lines would be clear. People would face the choice of sides and instantly everyone would know who is on what side.
The 'media' can also be taken out. Sop many ways to distrupt IP packets, etc...
"...just sensible legislation."
I could have sworn murder was already against the law.
Though popular on the Internet, snark does not make for good arguments.
Describe your idea of "sensible legislation" for me then.
Here's some more snark. Let's just ban what ever we're afraid of. Look how well that worked with prohibition and the war on drugs. Yep, drugs are gone and no gangster dominated black market anywhere to be found!
Sheeple NEVER LEARN. NYers letting Blooney get away with banning soda pop. I can't even think of an appropriate comment on that.
I did notice he offered no "sensible legislation" ;-)
House full-a-people...seeya.
Here is a fun thought experiment.Suppose someone steals a nuclear weapon and sets it off in DC.Do you really think TPTB would insist on a nuclear weapons ban then?
I don't think so!
+1 for dreaming the way I do.
TPTB won't ban anything for themselves. They and their cronies are above the law.
See 0bamacare on how Congress, certain megacorporations, and the unions are exempt.
Times change, human nature does not. The Second amendment was written to protect the people from human nature.
And how human nature plays itself out has definitely changed since with the technology we have. Individual arms do not deter state power. And please don't mention 'rifles and IEDs' in Iraq/Afghanistan. It isn't those weapons that are deterring the government from those wars, it's the popular reaction at home.
The 2nd Amendment was written with misplaced commas in a time without standardized conventions on punctuation.
Jesus. Your bleeding out from down votes. Time to pack up the bag and take the show somewhere else. You really haven't a clue on any of the issue/things you are mentioning.
One word to describe the nitwit: TROLL
It takes a lot of pounding before you get a bleeding fart...sorry, that was sick.
Why has the popluar reaction turned against those wars? Could it be the tens of thousands of dead and maimed American soldiers? Could it be that the enemy could not be defeated after 10 years?
If the Iraqis and Afghans had turned in their weapons and rolled over, the banksters would be their overlords right now.
So your contention is that the second ammendment is amphibolous therefore, we should ignore it. There are tons of fourth tier law schools out there waiting for your application.
"Just sensible legislation'...so what you are implying is that if we ban certain weapons you will be back in here when the next shooting happens to celebrate the fact that only 7 children were killed instead of 20. You will declare your policies a success? Quit peddling your moderate bullshit. You want to ban all guns...period.
In regards to your comments on technology changes since the 2nd amendment was written, I find it funny that guns are the only technology in question. I'm certain if you went to the founding fathers and told them that within 250 years we would have an uneducated populace that spends its time simulating murder and watching murders and a media that gives instant fame to the persons that act out what they see...it would probably be the 1st amendment that they would amend.
I never said that. That's an assumption you've made.
In regards to the media treatment of shootings, I agree that there is too much sensationalism but would never think changing the 1st amendment would solve that.
Awesome baby!!!
Now when REALLY angry fat people start carrying guns... that's when we'll be in trouble!
You mean really hungry
you're right,
1st they get hungry and find they can't buy their box of "Twinkies" anymore, then they get angry!
was wondering if there's a correlation between the growth of obese people in the U.S. and the growth of people on SNAP?
i love how you idiots constantly bleat this "sensible" shit, when your proposals are nothing of the kind or else are what we ALREADY have.
i love how you bleat about what others bleat instead of making a proposal of your own.
I'll throw my type of sensible legislation out there, but it doesn't ban any weapons that aren't already banned like automatic weapons.
Let's make it MANDATORY life imprisonment for ANY crime that involved the use of a firearm whether it was discharged or not. If it involved deaths, then perhaps public hanging would be the thing to do. No parole, no mercy.
This would not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens that DO NOT commit crimes from defending themselves, but it would make criminals kind of sparse over time I would think, at least ones armed with firearms.
Just my kind of sensible legislation. Lets ban the criminals, not the tools.
penalties ONLY deter crime in the civilized.
Our murder problem is NOT among the civilized, it is among people who have very little impulse control and exceedingly poor future time orientation.
I support the death penalty for treason, organized crime, murder and rape. You don't think that's right? Don't betray, perpetrate massive frauds or deprive others of their rights.
Sensible legislation, in a pig's ass. Fewer people are killed with rifles (including "assault weapons") than with fists, knives, clubs, or any other kind of gun, you ignorant fool.
What is "sensible"? Who decides that?
When looking at the map, it is not surprising that the area of the country with the largest, fattest asses is also where most of the gun NUTS are. Pre-historic livin' in that there backwaters!
Kentucky Fried Amuuurica!
Those are also the areas of the country with the highest percentages of African-Americans...
...so you are calling African-Americans fat asses...
...and implying that they are "prehistoric"...
...then on top of that, you make the fried chicken remark...
Racist.
+1000
When it comes to base opinion, progressives are the leading champions. Facts, figures, and science hurts their feelings.
emotional appeals quite often trump thought and inquiry. we've been trained that way from youth in the land of the free
Caused by bleeding heart human interest story bombardment on TV 24/7/365. The socialist commie collectivists weapon of choice.
forgot your /sarc tag...ppl are gonna think you were serious
I see the limp wristed liberal chimp didn't have a rebuttal to that one LOL
"When looking at the map, it is not surprising that the area of the country with the largest, fattest asses is also where most of the gun NUTS are."
Dumbass...review the charts...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/19/a-gun-ownership-renaissance/?wprss=rss_politics
Your link does not dispute anything I said. Just because you find some random article with gun charts doesn't mean it's relevant.
My argument still stands intact: there is an undeniable correlation between your intelligence, the size of your ass and your need to own deadly weapons.
Lower brain stem livin'!
YeeHaw!
The link shows gun grabbers are about to commit political suicide...but far be it from me to stand in your way.
Oh, so now African-Americans aren't intelligent and have big asses?
Are you a straight up white supremacist or what?
First thing I saw was Blues Country along the Mississippi...a eugenist is only one degree removed from a racist.
Like Bloomberg, Mengele...and Max ;-)
how would stating the truth pose a problem?
Get a clue!! All liberals are white supremacists. But rather than confront their racial competitors, they think they can manipulate and control them through propaganda, deception and free lunches to infinity.
Feigning generosity and sensitivity makes them feel good, and might even get them invited to the right parties.
they feel guilty about what is obvious. Instead of doing something to try to remediate, they throw money at it and try to sacrifice other whites on the altar of their guilt. Passover syndrome.
Doesn't ANYONE marvel at how say oriental people who actually went to africa and did bring back some slaves, and who are the #1 ranked ethnic group other than ashkenazis, and who suffered from scriminations and all of that too, never seem to have an ounce of guilt over that nature dealt them a bonzer set of genetic cards?
Asians in "racist USA" do better than whites...same is true in Peru and Brazil. They are right under 1% of the pop in brazil yet 27% of the USP enrollment. And these are people who got put into camps here, denied the right to vote, etc.
+ 1
Truth is truth.
Max is a Rayciss!
Here we go with the undeniable, indisputable bullshit again........
ever been on a subway in NY? Lots of fat fucks...
I advocate sensible restrictions in printing presses and television stations.
.
an update:
Being necessary to defend oneself against agents of the Federal Govt, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And be upgraded to match the Fed's fully autos..
The kill switch
If they *really* wanted to go after you, it wouldn't be arms that would help you. I don't have to mention the numerous times this has actually happenned.
The govt's last big gun grab was during the Bush administration as a response to Hurricane Katrina. The govt sent Natl Guardsmen with a list of registered gun owners and went house to house on that list confiscating firearms.
It wasn't until much after that news of this came out.
We now have laws that allow the president to shut down the internet and just in time for the holidays, we will have laws allowing for detaining Americans without due process.
I think 300 million firearms in this country is exactly what this country needs. If there were another country like America in line behind us, I'd say, go fuck yourself, I'm going to this other country where I can live free. But there is no other country. America is the last country. That's it. Every where else it's less free.
I'm not going to fly around the world with Simon Black.
This is my home. There are 200+ countries that are doing the shitty things you want done here. Many speak English as the native tongue. Go there and leave this one alone.
Leave one country on this planet that holds 'life, liberty and property' above 'free healthcare, safety, and leadership'.
Couldn't have said it better. If they like living in a "safe" country (Cuba, NK, most of Europe, Australia, and on and on) where guns are verboten, they hey, go ahead, punkie...let me help you pack.
Then you have that fat-ass English bastard on CNN coming over here trying to tell US to get rid of our guns -that SOB should know that we fought a war to get rid of people like him -AND WE WON! Get the hell out of here, if you don't like it. Too many pussified Europeans want to turn us into them.
You make an interesting point, but... you don't quite have the facts straight. Just one counter example of exception to your sweeping generality: Canada (with better stats in health, education, lower crime rates across the board, fewer guns,international respect and comparable lifestyle) DOES allow fire arms. They simply have some rational and precautionary rules in place to filter out the nutjobs, the unstable, or 'crazies-in-training'. This includes mandatory gun safety classes, and emphasis (strong encouragement) of joining a gun club. If you think about it, it's a clever way for a self regulating system to have Peers vet and weed out the Good, Bad and downright Ugly. It's just an alternate balance between unbridled 'liberty' of the Walking Timebombs and the liberty of the rest of the populace. Admittedly it is not quite as profitable for the Merchants of Death, and with less emphasis on Frontier culture, but just and effective when looked in its totality. And, in case you/anyone missed it, they DO allow guns, just not to the same extent and ease of access as in the US... where guns & ammo are such... 'good business'. Savvy?
Speak to me about Canadian gun laws:
handguns (not happening -certainly not for the vast majority of normal, law-abiding citizens)
concealed carry (highly, highly restricted)
registration (registration of handguns since the 1930s)
You can own a firearm in various countries, but the government is breathing down your neck every second. Canada is only slightly better.
It is also worth mentioning that the gun grab after Katrina caused an uproar in the entire South and pretty much every state passed a law that even under martial law weapons cannot be confiscated by the state.
Because twenty-first century Iraqis and Afghans have had no success at all in battling Western forces with AK-47 and IED's, right?
I was talking about functions of the state.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is conducted by the government. Regardless of whether or not people agree with why these wars started, if the government is there, the military controlled by the government can use the forces it has.
I wasn't referring to the military operating in a foreign land where the government has to think about popular support. I was referring to the idea that a 'well-armed populace' is a deterrent against a domestic tyranny.
How does a change in venue change the fact that individuals have fought the mightiest army in the world to a standstill with firearms and improvised devices? The Iraqis are fine people but it's not like they are supermen as compared to Americans.
I think that's a too simplified version of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan. It wasn't the actual weapons that deterred the government, it was popular reaction to those deaths they caused. If the American public had a tolerance of casualties like they had, say in WWII, or even the Vietnam war, the government would probably still be there.
The change of venue is important because then it's a domestic issue of civil liberties, rather than a war in a foreign country.
So Iraqis demonstrated the ability to fight for their liberty but Americans can't possibly do the same even though that's how our nation was founded? That makes no senses whatsoever.
It also makes no sense to say that Americans would rather be attacked by their government than to fight against such attacks because they don't like high casualty counts. The opposite would be true. It's absurd to suggest that Americans would let the government perpetrate continuous bombings and drone attacks domestically just as they do overseas and that Americans would sit by and take it because sitting quietly when you die makes people feel safe.
.
Crockett - you are preaching your own points, using BF's post as an excuse. You are not responding to what he actually wrote.
BF's point is correct: No gun of any kind is an effective defense against invasions that today's governments can launch against their people. Convincing people that guns are an effective defense against invasions that today's governments can launch is criminal.
When the Constitution was created, national governments could and would come after their populace with mechanical weapons such as swords and guns. The populace correctly needed a defense against that in the form of having their own mechanical weapons. Crock, you know that history as well as the next guy, probably better than the next guy. You also understand that national, state, or local governments in the U.S. coming after their population with mechanical weapons such as swords or guns is not the type of takeover to be most feared by the populace now. The takeover has been, and will continue to be, by other means - not by armed invasion. Mechanical weapons have been, and will continue to be, ineffective against the type of takeover that has been occuring. Therefore, pointing to the 2nd Amendment as a defense useful for common folk is misleading and dangerous at best, criminal at worst.
The danger of the NRAs argument to the uninformed folks (or dumb folks if you prefer) is that they are selling a safety that doesn't exist to people who are too uninformed (dumb) to understand that. The time has long passed that mechanical weapons are an effective defense against government take-over of our lives - because the government is not taking away our freedoms using the mechanical weapons described in the 2nd Amendment. But claiming that the 2nd Amendment is a defense still useful and effective today keeps people from educating themselves about the defenses that they should be acquiring in this day and age to protect themselves against the domestic invasions that today's governments are capable of launching.
So we ignore the 1.4 billion rounds of .40 ammo and associated weapons that 'Homeland Defense' has ordered?
No, he did not come on suggesting a discussion of how the populace should defend itself against tyrrany and invasion of one's life by the government in this day and age by means other than and/or in addition to having arms/weaponry. He came on with the claim there should be "sensible legislation" wrt guns, attempting to buttress that nonsensical nonstarter with the absurd proposition that it should not matter if there's further ("sensible") legislation curtailing gun rights -- since one presumably cannot protect oneself against a directed government attack anyway.
Learned helplessness.
No.
If you actually knew about history, you'd know that the best defense against tyranny is a well-informed populace since the modern state will always have more firepower/legitimacy than an armed individual.
"the modern state will always have more firepower/legitimacy than an armed individual."
Your mask just slipped there, Mr Marx. The state has more legitimacy than any individual in your eyes, that's clear.
No.
I was describing how things are, not making an ideological assertion. The state has a monopoly on overwhelming force and has much more influence over information than an individual has. That's a description, not a prescription.
Your contradictions do not help your case but rather reveal the sloppy thinking you employ in support of your talking points.
First you said:
Then you said:
If the state has an overwhelming ability to control information then how is it possible for a populace to be well-informed and how is defense possible without any defensive capability?
I will take a guess.
Because to an effete urbane urbanite, slogans and evidently being "well informed" create an impenetrable wall that not only shields their brains from the world but also creates the same barrier against tiny pieces of metal at supersonic speeds. The argument seems based around the idea that if people are well informed, they will not be shot. It certainly worked very well for intellectuals under every totalitarian regime of the 20th century, I mean its not like they tend to be the first rounded up and mowed down. Governments clearly feared their intellectual and defensive prowess, the dread that the intelligensia inspired in Stalin and Mao is famous. Making live servants of the state into dead servants of the state means nothing, it is only information which stops the excesses of the state. History does not show that regime changes come from making the armed defenders of state power into worm food, it clearly shows that intelligent people sipping lattes in large cities while debating the transformative power of art on human existence does.
As this thesis does not correspond well to known human history, another interpretation is that he is a complete fucking idiot.
Nation-states NEVER have more legitimacy than an individual, NEVER!
and the sky is blue(when the clouds are NOT present).
wow-can't hardly take it-fucken -eh...
That's funny.
I was sitting in a cellar room in Budapest that used to be used to torture dissidents; nowadays it's a nice little soros-funded student cafe'. The guy across from me took a big old pull on his cigarette and said "yes, we could get rid of Milosevic. He's a monster. We'd love to. We know of course where are all the fancy houses on the hill. But he and his Chetniks have all the bullets."
Fundamentals dont change.
I'd rather keep my outhouse and handpump than part with my guns, thank you very much. And I don't believe I'm much in need of your "tanks, jet fighters, and nuclear weapons" for that matter, either. Actually if there were a few more of me we could maybe even save this country's fiscal cliff ass, too.
The 2nd Amendment is so open to interpretation, there's nothing wrong with changing your attitudes about it. Just amend the Constitution with clear language and you're set.
If you're into that kinda thing. Heh.
Bleeding fart.... "you ignorant slut..."
The Death of General Warren at the Battle of Bunker's Hill, June 17, 1775 a painting by John Trumbull tells all you need to know as to why the US has the second amendment
When guns are outlawed only the king’s men will have guns.
\https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_General_Warren_at_the_Battle_of_Bunker%27s_Hill,_June_17,_1775
Easy there Hitler... I mean, Kitler... Your liberal bias is showing...
And I say let Kitler show his/her liberal bias. Some posters don't like when I go after such persons, but I do it for a reason.
History has shown, that it is people for freedom, that not only sacrifice their lives, but it is mind numb liberals like Kitler that get sacrificed. What need does a dictator have of a liberal like Kitler after that dictator has gained power and elections are irrelevant? Answer: NONE. Kitler will be in line for extermination and the ironic part is Kitler will have supported it. I will die, but if it is in a fight, I will die fighting. Kitler will die on his/her knees begging for mercy.
Don't pretend the labels matter. Fight with people who think wrong--trying to call them NAMES is worse than useless.
Please provide documentation or admit that you're lying. Which will it be?
He's lying.
He's a liberal, so that says it all
Kitler, you are a liar or a fool.
(Posted on another board)
The NRA came out with a proposal to post armed police officers at schools to prevent or at least minimize the next school shooting. The left promptly called the idea nuts.
Turns out, it wasn’t a new idea. President Bill Clinton proposed the same idea in April 2000. He implemented it, too, only to see Barack Obama cut the funding for it.
So, if you’re keeping score, the NRA agrees with a 12-year old Bill Clinton position on school security. The left just called a former Democrat president “crazy.”
Let’s get even more confusing. Clinton proposed more security for schools in the wake of the 1999 Columbine shooting. It turns out that Columbine High School did have an armed sheriff’s deputy on the scene the day of its tragic shooting spree. That deputy exchanged fire with one of the killers twice, drawing their attention away from killing unarmed teenagers. The deputy and his backup also helped organize the evacuation of students from the school. Though the deputy’s presence obviously did not stop the attack from happening, it likely did save many lives.
Let’s pile on even more confusion. The NRA today proposed protecting our children to a level similar to the way we protect our banks and many public buildings: With armed security. As we’ve established, this idea has been around for more than 12 years and was once proposed by a Democratic president. Many on the anti-gun left responded to today’s proposal not with a thoughtful rejoinder, but with calls to shoot Wayne LaPierre.
I’m not done yet. There is one more bit of confusing data to work with. The Columbine shooting occurred on April 20, 1999. The Assault Weapons Ban that the Democrats wish to revive in response to the Newtown killings ran from 1993 to 2004.
Understatement
Ban cigarettes.
They can't even keep people from texting while driving.
just ban assholes...that'll solve lots of problems
oh, shit, i may be caught in that ban
"just ban assholes..."
Are you talking about obnoxious people or the exit of the alimentary tract?
It seems like a cigarette in one's paw would prevent one from texting while driving. Tobacco saves lives.
No no no no no no no nuh
I personally saw a lady out here in the Land of Love, Compassion and Grand Statism for All driving whilst sipping a cuppa in one hand and a phone And smoke in the other, on the wheel...
She also had a Yomomma sticker on her car, but that doesn't/didn't/shouldn't have anything to do with it.
I think.
And no, please don't ask me how the fuck she knew what she was doing.... Probably on her way to the hairdresser, gynecologist or shrink.
Lotta people out here on shrinks.
Lots.
If most of 'em would just stop and think for a reason, no need... but who am I to judge, eh?
Fuckin' morons.
And I thought this was a good trick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS4QGAtrCk8
The market will produce text-friendly smokes the minute anyone demonstrates the need...
why don't you just say "black people" if you mean black people?
If you include hispanics, it would be probably an 85% drop. In some cities, it'd be damn near 100%. In NYC for example, these two groups commit 90% of the homicides (blacks 68%ish) and 96% of the shootings. In Chicago it is almost 100% of each.
Seriously, murder would dry almost completely up in this country if blacks and hispanics were banned.
So what are you proposing with your collectivist observations?
Just how exactly should we as a society deal with the facts you present?
I just can't bring myself to say it....
Too late...I think I aready did!
For the clueless...I was being sarcastic in the post below.
Special camps.Where they can be concentrated in one place.
That would fix it.
are you some kind of ogre?
But, seriously, what the fuck exactly is wrong with you people? I mean, really...there is NO DISPUTE for the facts I state, yet you cannot bring yourselves to even consider them.
You will INSIST to your death that we are ALL the same despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
And you have the gall to call all those MSM watching lemmings out there, "sheep"? ROTFL.
Are you an actual member of the Master race?
You sure do bitch a lot.
Trav's a master baiter. A man with more gall than point.
We're obviously not all the same, but you can't seem to entertain the idea that low IQ comes in every color in the rainbow (also supported by your 'facts').
Low IQ comes in you, I can tell that much.
There are different distribution curves of IQ for every race. I have said that, oh..only about 10000 times.
Low IQ comes much more frequently in brown races. Just the cards nature dealt.
I'd say your IQ is completely indicated by your obsession with correlation and failure to grasp causation, but if you want to define your life by an incorrect non-linear approximation due to an inability to entertain more than one coordinate system, by all means, soldier on in abject ignorance.
And I assume you mean back on the continent from which they came?
incentivize lowering birth rates for low IQ persons regardless of race, the opposite for high IQ. Throw in some fudge factor for psychopathy or other personality disorder
My observations were not collectivist, btw, moron. They were simply statements of fact.
So you aren't advocating death camps for niggers --- merely eugenics.
Don't have to kill them off all at once, as long as we do it over a number of generations, is that it?
What a humanitarian you are.
I imagine he would also settle for giving them all jobs so they'd be too busy to harm anyone. Unpaid, of course.
ok, fuckhead....now it's YOUR fucking turn, bitch.
What is YOUR solution?
Oh, you don't have one? Or are you going to pretend another few trillion of "education" and playing pretend is going to "solve" a problem that NATURE gave us?
You are a fucking piece of shit. I advocate death camps for the likes of you.
Dude, you are a day late and a dollar short.Margaret Sanger and planned parenthood are on the case.
Besides, you should rejoice.The US kills brown people as a matter of policy....it will come home too, along with the drones.
Your paradise is so close.
at this point, I have to ask: are you insane?
the thing that I marvel at with you people is the depths of your inability to accept rational facts and the necessary consequences of simple truths.
The US kills brown people...and??!? We bombed fucking SERBIA too, IDIOT. We kill everyone.
You hate birth control, too? WTF? Do you idiots HONESTLY think we can GROW FOREVER? That somehow this cult of the "individual" and your asinine worship of "libertarianism" has an INFINITE lifespan?
the math is CERTAIN and nature doesn't give a FUCK about what you or the other idiot think or want.
There are two outcomes here: one is that eventually, through the stupidity of people like you, the populations that DO NOT HAVE the necessary genetics to sustain civilization will eventually dominate or else those who do will have to combine to act. Pick which one you want.
Or keep whistling past the graveyard; I really don't give a shit.
There are two outcomes here: one is that eventually, through the stupidity of people like you, the populations that DO NOT HAVE the necessary genetics to sustain civilization will eventually dominate or else those who do will have to combine to act. Pick which one you want.
It's really all black and white in your world, isn't it?
Trav loves all his brothers, whether they be cream, eggshell, plaster, alabaster, porcelain, or white.
I'm all about the Depro-Provera cross-bow and make no bones about it.
I just want the bolts distributed according to IQ, not color.
if the only 'fact' you've trumpeted all this time is true (i.e. "many brown people are poor!"), then you should rejoice that a goodly portion of the bolts will end up where you'd like.
I didn't know Germans were brown people. We fought two huge wars with them and killed millions, much more than we've killed of any brown people.