[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=paramount]I thought this video offered an interesting perspective on Boston:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTYJ5Yi-1kk%5B/quote%5D

Paramount: Wow. Gotta love the internet. Prior to the internet, lunatic fringe elements like this would have been relegated to a dark corner of Nowheresville, Alabama, preaching this nonsense to other like-minded folks.

Now? You can widely disseminate this stupidity across the globe. Wheeeeee!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Jazzman: In all honesty, do you see a favorable outcome to the US Government attempting to seize 300 million firearms, even if done in phases?

As a nation, we’re confronting the reality that our government is all too willing to abridge our rights, and engage in all manner of conduct antithetical to the Constitution and Bill of Rights and you feel that wholesale disarmament of the citizenry is a good thing?

I’d ask that you be objective and see how terribly wrong this could go. With various pieces of legislation either on the books or in the works (NDAA, AUMF, CISPA, etc), we’re now seeing the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendments under assault as well.

I’m sorry, but pushing more power to the federal government just doesn’t seem like a good idea.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Jazzman: I have no problem with lofty, and I understand the greater good, especially as it relates to a social/civic compact. Where it breaks down is in the practical application. There are an estimated 300 million guns in the US. How in the name of God do you see that number of weapons being seized, confiscated, etc?

Not trying to be intentionally difficult, but this would appear to be an insoluble problem.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jazzman]I agree it is a symptom, and you need to look at the wider socio-economic aspect; demographics, employment rate, media violence and so on. There is a plentiful supply of potential contributing factors, but the more you wade into the minutiae, the further you remove yourself from resolving the problem. There is prima facie evidence in the form of a tangible object (guns) that would be much simpler to tackle, than a restructuring of a social order, and would likely yield quicker results.

I would favor a incremental gun control policy, backed up by research and education. Within a generation you would be able to enforce a complete ban on all guns, and reduce deaths dramatically. It should form part of a wider policy to eradicate the more indirect causes. It would be healthier for all.[/quote]

Jazzman: Complete agreement with you on all fronts, save the complete ban part. However, that stands in direct opposition to your observation that gun control is a highly politicized topic, considered by many politicians to be a “third rail” in American politics. There was a good reason that Obama avoided even the mention of gun control in his first term and that Senate vote illustrated why vividly. Obama had the bully pulpit, media support and public polling numbers behind him and still got hammered.

Where I take exception with the ban has nothing to do with my 2nd Amendment rights (a huge and completely separate issue), but rather the fact that I am a responsible gun owner and have been for the better part of 30 years. Why am I penalized for the actions of others? Why am I deprived of my ability to defend myself and my family, especially in the instance of a civil disturance (1992 LA riots) or natural disaster (Hurricane Sandy or Katrina), when first responders are either not there or tied up with more serious problems?

There’s a great expression that goes: “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away”. I don’t keep any loaded guns in the house and don’t believe in doing so for protection. I have four dogs (the world’s best alarm system) and a very sharp SOG single edge that I’m quite adept with (again, thanks to the US Army) for home defense.

However, in a case like the LA riots, I also have a Remington 870 Police shotgun and some nice 3″ Magnum buck and slug loads. During the Fallbrook fires some years back, the Sheriff’s Department was openly advising keeping a loaded gun at hand, due to looters (several of which were shot and killed during the fires). I have a right to self-defense and the means and the will, if necessary. This is where I part company with those that advocate ceding that to the police. I have a quite a few friends in law enforcement, both local and federal and, in private, they all say the same thing that Joe Biden did: Arm yourself and protect yourself.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: Dude, you rock. Seriously. Plus, you used the word “hypercalcemic”! Nice.

Relative to the tautology, I wanted to yank yer twine and see if I could get a response.

I also agree with the paradox of the modern Tea Party and its “Keep your government hands off my Medicare” mantra. No cure for stupid.

No, I don’t believe that Wesley Clark is a doofus. Far from it. He is representative of that ass-kissing, social-climbing Politically Correct general officer that the Army is awash in right now (and has been for the last generation). These officers know the right asses to kiss, the way to play the game within “The Corporation” (the Pentagon) and will do or say anything to advance their own fortunes, whilst never given offense or telling the truth.

So, Clark isn’t a fighting general (in the WWII sense of the word), doesn’t really know tactics, or strategy, or war-fighting, since he hasn’t been involved with the “dirty” side of the business since he was probably a major or light colonel, but that doesn’t prevent him from appearing on every news show that will have him, blathering on about shit he knows less than nothing about.

Tommy Franks, and Shinseki and McChrystal fall into this category as well. Stan McChrystal’s most serious failing wasn’t running his mouth to Rolling Stone, it was pretending he had a fucking clue about what to do in Afghanistan. His contention that he “wrote the book” on counterinsurgency warfare in Afghanistan was a howler because it WAS NOT a counterinsurgency war at all. Again, no cure for stupid.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Jazzman: You have a post above showing the homicide rates in some major American cities. I’d like to point out some additional statistics as well, but the current Politically Correct doxa prevents me from doing so, lest I be accused of racism.

Let’s face it, in certain American cities, gun violence (and violence in general) is not the problem, it’s a symptom and one that is studiously ignored. Thus we have a president wading into the Trayvon Martin shooting, but saying absolutely nothing about the epidemic of gun violence in his adopted city of Chicago. Why? We all know why, but no one will.openly broach the topic.

Criminals are not securing weapons through legal and legitimate sources and I don’t think anyone will dispute that. Until we are willing to discuss the destruction of the black family and the resultant collapse of social order, along with issues related to the prescription of certain behavior modifying drugs and the woeful state of mental health care in this country, the killings will continue.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Jazzman: Not asking this facetiously, but what questions do you feel still need to be asked?

There was a ban on assault weapons that included a reduction in magazine capacities to less than 10 rounds. Subsequent to the ban’s sunset, groups as diverse as the National Institute of Justice (NIJ, the research arm of the Department of Justice), the CDC and the National Research Council, all issued reports on the effectiveness of the ban. Nearly universally, it was held to not have worked, largely because those weapons deemed as “assault weapons” are infrequently used in gun murders. Also, reduced capacity magazines did not negatively impact gun murder rates, either.

There has also been similar reportage on universal background checks, which found that due to strawman purchases (47%) and theft (26%), the efficacy of such checks would be reduced. Implementing a universal background check that solely focused on minimizing strawman purchases was held to be of benefit, but hugely costly and cumbersome.

Coming so shortly on the heels of the Newtown strategy, the president’s push for gun control was political theater (especially with his pervasive use of either children or first responders at his various speaking venues), combined with opportunism. Obama is a skilled orator and campaigner and undoubtedly struck while the iron was hot. If anything demonstrates the sheer muscle of the NRA, it was this Senate vote.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

NSR: Thanks. I’ll check Ferris out; he sounds like a good read. Speaking of pabulum, I’m reminded of former “security expert” Richard Clarke and his turn as a self-professed “cyber security expert”. He wrote a book on the topic, which was shredded by “Wired” magazine and then Rob Rosenberg at VMyths took him down as being part of a False Authority Syndrome. That term stuck with me and I think of it every time I see one of these media darlings bloviating about a topic they know nothing about.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Desmond: Many of these news outlets, regardless of leaning, source their materials from the same people or groups, which means an intern went out on Google and looked up “bomb expert”.

They also share military “experts”, which is why I was granted the rare viewing pleasure of watching that complete moron Wesley Clark beclown himself on several networks. But, he’s telegenic, speaks in complete sentences and once wore an Army uniform with little shiny stars on it, so he clearly must know what he’s talking about.

He does additional duty as a “counterinsurgency” expert (a topic he knows exactly dick about) and “strategy” expert. On the latter topic, he is an expert. He developed and implemented an excellent strategy of affixing his lips to Bill Clinton’s ass.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

CAR: Geez, I’ll definitely stick around for that kind of flattery! I agree on the SK assessment, too. I’d never admit this in polite company, but he’ s gotten me to rethink my position on more than a few issues.

Back in the day, that was a true strength of this board. It boasted several Center-Left and Left thinkers, including SK, afx, Gandalf and arraya, all of whom were articulate, thoughtful, and prepared posters. No ad hom, no trash talking and none of the fact-free posturing that came to dominate the site. That was when I called it a day. If I want stupidity, I can find it locally.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

CAR/all: Thank you both for the kind words, I appreciate them.

CAR: When were we ever on opposing sides? 🙂

[Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: Entirely correct that registration and confiscation are worlds apart, making the Senate vote all the more mystifying. Given Obama’s jawboning on the topic and nearly unanimous public support (polling over 90% positive), you would think that it would have breezed through. Not so. Which now raises the wider question of “Why?”. Those 2014 midterms are looming ever closer.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=all]It’s good to see a post by Allan again, regardless of the content.[/quote]

Thanks.

I think.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: Speaking of history, isn’t a non-representative authority (in the form of a tyrannical monarch like George III) a tautology?

Also, can the Sons of Liberty, in your example, be considered “Constitutionalists”, given that the Constitution hadn’t even been written yet?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

KIBU: I don’t even know what “pieces of history applied in a hallucinating way” even means.

I do know this, however: As you sit tapping away at your keyboard, you reside in what is now one of the most intrusive national security states in modern history (I’m presuming you’re in the United States). This isn’t paranoia, mind you, it’s established fact. So we’re not talking about Hitler, but rather the lessons of history and how they tend to repeat themselves.

You seem either blissfully unaware of this, or in support of it, based on your willingness to arrogate even more power to a government that maintains a kill list of American “enemies”, has already killed an American on foreign soil and engages in unrestricted drone warfare. We won’t go into AUMF, NDAA, or the laundry list of “laws” that do nothing to protect your security and everything to rob you of your essential liberties.

Do I have a problem with commonsense regulations like a universal background check. Absolutely not (as long as it does not include a federal registry). I am all for any and all regulations that prevent gun deaths and increase gun safety. I am, however, very wary of any politicians that make abolishment of my gun rights a stated priority. You need look no further than Miz Pelosi for such an example.

I don’t own an assault rifle and never have, nor do I have plans to own one. I do, however, own weapons that, in my hands, could be considered exceptionally lethal (training for which came courtesy of the US Army), but don’t fall under the assault weapons category. My point? Every firearm is potentially an assault weapon, but personal responsibility matters far more to me in terms of safety than an overweening and intrusive federal government telling me what I can or cannot own.

Spare me your lessons on history, as it appears you’re unable to even see what surrounds you now, in the “land of the free”.

[Author]

Posts