[dumbrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]KIBU: I’ve never denied that there is a problem. Far from it. Going further, I’ve also written numerous times supporting ANY AND ALL measures that will improve safety and make gun ownership less dangerous.

However, in a neat piece of dissembling, you make it seem as though any disagreement with what you said is “dishonest”. In early posts, you accused me and other pro-gun supporters of being “self-delusional” and twisting facts and evidence to support our position.

It’s obvious that you’re anti-gun and virulently so. Fine. It’s America and you’re entitled to your opinion, same as everyone else.

However, you’ve not stated your plan to solve the problem and continue to avoid answering the question.

Yes, we have a problem. What’s the solution? With details, please.[/quote]

No, we don’t have a gun problem. If anything, we have an issue with creating situation where some members in our society decide to take it out on little kids at school. These folks who engage in such acts come from across income demographics but practically all of them have had contact with our medical industry, many of them were on meds, and they had no support system to fall back upon to where they could be cared for.
Our system of government has gradually broken down the bonds of family & community and made everything a matter of an individual and the state. Our material wants have brought both dad & mom to workplace. A home maker and her contributions mean nothing when measured by our liberal economists. There is no value in our society to be a home maker and raise & care for a family. Many of the kids are outsourced to day care centers or left with electronic entertainment. When they act up, they are put on meds. And when they are totally lost and act out their frustration, these same economist geniuses wail against guns.
We created this cruel system ourselves, keep voting for its continuity and when such incidents happen, we get all righteous about the fact that this happens only here among developed economies.

I guess blaming guns is a lot easier way out than taking a hard look at our humanity & the cruel system/structures we have created that lets these poor folks fall to such depths that taking it out on little kids at school is the only thing they can do to show their frustration.

In terms of cost, it costs so little to provide a net for these about to be shooting perpetrators, a little bit of care for them, compared to the consequences. But oh no, we cannot talk about that, it is all about the guns.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=dumbrenter][quote=ocrenter][quote=dumbrenter]We should have mandatory registration of all knives over 4 inches long, clubs, baseball bats and dog owners.
Any dog owner letting their dog off the leash in a public area should prosecuted by a government appointed panel.[/quote]

GLad you brought up dogs. All dogs are mandated to be registered. If caught having an unlicensed dog, a fine is assessed. An unlicensed dog involved in an altercation you are now looking at charges of an at large dog and having a vicious dog. Dogs that exchange hands need to be re-licensed, and so on.

Great example dumbrenter, thanks![/quote]

Thank you. Also note that there is no demand for national registry of dog owners and most of the registrations on local government level (not even state if I am not mistaken). There will be no media generated frenzy if you are attacked by a dog.[/quote]

So are you saying if local government is going to start registering all guns within its border, you would be ok with it then?

Reason why national registry works better is because trafficking of guns would be easier than trafficking of dogs.[/quote]

Almost. The local governments can ‘try’ to start registering all guns. You are missing the key difference between how dogs are registered and what you are asking for.

Your reason for national registry working better for guns is both immature and ignores how laws are made. To address one, it is harder to transport other humans against their wishes than trafficking dogs. Does it mean we should now have a national registry of all humans? Does an American have a choice of refusing to be registered? Don’t even bother coming back to me with SS# or drivers license…they are not obligatory and will show you are either confused between rights & privileges or that you have a control freak agenda.

Interesting how it starts with guns but is all about control.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=ocrenter]
#5. Firepower. At some point you have to limit guns with excessive firepower. Guns are for self defense right? Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?[/quote]

Wrong. 2nd amendment goes much further than self defense.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=dumbrenter]We should have mandatory registration of all knives over 4 inches long, clubs, baseball bats and dog owners.
Any dog owner letting their dog off the leash in a public area should prosecuted by a government appointed panel.[/quote]

GLad you brought up dogs. All dogs are mandated to be registered. If caught having an unlicensed dog, a fine is assessed. An unlicensed dog involved in an altercation you are now looking at charges of an at large dog and having a vicious dog. Dogs that exchange hands need to be re-licensed, and so on.

Great example dumbrenter, thanks![/quote]

Thank you. Also note that there is no demand for national registry of dog owners and most of the registrations on local government level (not even state if I am not mistaken). There will be no media generated frenzy if you are attacked by a dog.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=dumbrenter]We should have mandatory registration of all knives over 4 inches long, clubs, baseball bats and dog owners.
Any dog owner letting their dog off the leash in a public area should prosecuted by a government appointed panel.[/quote]

OH Oh… and parenting… Parenting too…

I think more lives have been screwed up from bad parents than any other single items so lets throw them into the arguement as well…

CE[/quote]

Parents! how could I have forgotten the biggest item for mandatory registration?
Thanks for pointing it out.
Every parent should get a license from government before having kids since these kids turn out to be future users of the future banned weapons.
What good will all these guns be if nobody is around to shoot them?

[dumbrenter]

[quote=CA renter][quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]

This wasn’t directed at me, but how about Bloomberg? Wouldn’t you admit that he represents the interests of Wall Street and many of the “moneyed elite”?

How about Walmart executives?

—–

“Wal-Mart Toughens Gun Policies

By DEVLIN BARRETT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest seller of firearms, announced Monday it will toughen rules for gun sales, from storing video of purchases to creating an internal log of which guns they sell that are later used in crimes.

J.P. Suarez, the chief compliance officer for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., appeared with outspoken gun control advocate Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York to announce the changes at a gathering of Bloomberg’s group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.”

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/ap_041408.shtml

——————-

It seems to me that Bloomberg would be doing society a much greater service if he would focus on the “financial terrorism” unleashed on us by Wall Street. Why is he so hell-bent on gun control, but so totally weak on breaking the backs of those in the financial industry who’ve just about brought this country to its knees? Why are there no high-level financial executives in jail for causing the financial bubble/collapse? Please don’t try to tell us that they “didn’t know what they were doing.”[/quote]

Bloomberg is the mayor of the biggest city in the country. That’s where his interest in gun control originates. His views are very similar to other big city mayors wrt guns. “Financial terrorism” isn’t within the purview of most mayors, including Bloomberg. The NY AG, whose scope of responsibility does include “financial terrorism” is addressing it.

The issue of why there aren’t any high-level executives in jail isn’t something I can defend, nor is it anything I would try to. Nor do I think it’s related to the issue we’re discussing. I suspect we’re in strong agreement on that point.

Do big corporations have disproportional influence? Absolutely. Does the finance industry have disproportional influence with both political parties? Absolutely. Is the federal government systematically invading our constitutional rights to privacy and due process? Absolutely. Do they have a motivation to take away guns? Quite possibly. Is there any evidence that they’re trying to do so? I’m still waiting. They couldn’t pass a watered down bill on background checks in the senate, much less the house. So what has actually happened over the last 5 years with regards to the government taking away guns? Absolutely nothing.[/quote]

Your assertions about Bloomberg’s motives are pure speculation, as are my theories about his motives. It’s highly doubtful he, or any other “one percenter,” would ever confess their desires to disarm the masses so that they (and their cronies) could more easily engage in their quest to amass more power and wealth.

To be sure, if there is any person who best represents the interests of Wall Street, leading corporations, and “the rich,” Bloomberg would have to be at the top of the list.

Also, while I understand that Bloomberg is not the AG, he is certainly capable of putting a lot more pressure on the right people in govt to get some indictments rolling, wouldn’t you agree?

How about George Soros?

Here, you have two heavy-hitters from the 1% club and they both have strong ties to the world of finance and corporatism. Both are rabidly in favor of gun control, and are using their own money and connections to (very effectively) fund and push anti-gun legislation. That the legislation has not made it all the way through (yet) is only because there is so much public pressure to protect our right to bear arms.

One must wonder, though, if their own security teams are armed. Somehow, I get the feeling that they think being unarmed and defenseless is for “the little people.”[/quote]

But CA renter, where is the evidence? Do you have a notarized copy indicating the intent of the moneyed class with respect to arms control?
SK has direct mind control line with Bloomberg, so he obviously needs to make no effort to back up his “assertions” about Bloomberg’s intent or provide any “conclusive evidence”.

SK is right though that there is a lot of public pressure to bear arms and it is also channeled well in terms of numbers and resources by the lobby groups. A bunch of “little people” putting in their $35 is the only thing standing between the moneyed class and their objective of control.

[dumbrenter]

We should have mandatory registration of all knives over 4 inches long, clubs, baseball bats and dog owners.
Any dog owner letting their dog off the leash in a public area should prosecuted by a government appointed panel.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=dumbrenter] The shortage of ammo is pretty easy to explain. People who are afraid the government wants to take guns is driving some people to buy ammo. The myth that ammo is being purchased by the government at any significantly higher rates than in the past has been debunked so many times, I shouldn’t have to address it. Because you might have read it on infowars.com doesn’t make it so.[/quote]

While at making unfounded claims, just parroting your masters at wall street does not help much.

If it is regular folk buying up the ammo to the point of causing shortage, where are they storing it? Has there been a commensurate increase in storage space? Increase in usage?

Anyway, don’t bother. Did not realize you were a partisan.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=dumbrenter]
Context, Context….You might want to re-read what I wrote. My observations about correlation relate to actions of moneyed class and general availability of arms & ammunition. This was in response to your specific question “Irrespective of that, I would think that if there is a connection between the monied crowd and gun control, it could be identified. Is Monsanto funding gun control advocacy? JP Morgan? Goldman Sachs?”

I did not make an “assertion” nor claimed “evidence”.

It would be my pleasure to provide you with my reasoning (fully acknowledging I could be wrong) but your distortion of context (deliberate or otherwise) make it harder for me to communicate with you.

Going back to what you “thought” I was referring to: deflation is already being tried, interest rates have been kept low and QE game of buying up treasuries to lower the yield is what is going on now. please enlighten us what else can be done to keep the deflation going?
I’ll discount black swan events (and alien attacks) since the very nature of those, by definition, are hard to predict and quantify.
The option of slow growth is dictated not by monetary policy but by the patience of the holders of paper assets and those countries in whose interest it is to keep buying treasuries. I honestly do not know how long they’d want to go but it cannot be forever.
so, by elimination, the only two remaining options are what I mentioned before. You can already see elements of option ‘b’ beginning this year.
Now, I’d love for you to tell my why either of those options will not be considered.[/quote]

You both made an assertion and claimed you had evidence for it. Here’s your assertion:

SK, in near future the country will face an either/or choice: (a) inflate massively to get out of this hole
(b) raise taxes and at the same time cut welfare across the board.

I’m not sure how the context is important here. That’s a pretty absolute claim.

And then you said:

That said, to be clear, I have no “conclusive evidence” other than a set of correlations.

Now that that’s out of the way…

QE has not caused any significant deflation. Deflation, by definition is an inflation rate below zero. Inflation was negative during the 15 months immediately following the onset of QE1, coinciding with the recession, but there has been positive inflation for the last 40 months that data is available. So your question of “what else can be done to keep the deflation going” again begs the question. The premise of your question is invalid.

You’ve hardly eliminated every other option. The Fed is likely to reduce QE spending by the end of this year. It’s very possible that the economy will continue to limp along as it has been, and barring obstructionist roadblocks, government debt will continue to paid on time, with only relatively small expansion of that debt, and even a continuation of the reduction in the debt/GDP ratio, without further tax increases and without further spending cuts.

Foreign central and private banks will stop buying US debt when….probably never. They really don’t have a lot of attractive alternatives.

And back to the original question…is there any evidence that those with money and power are pushing an anti-gun agenda? So far, all you’ve provided is some scenarios based on false premises, explaining why there may be motivation for them to do so. Surely, if the Fed or Wall Street was trying to take our guns, there would be some evidence of that actually happening.[/quote]

It is a shame that you keep taking the comments out of context.

I suggest you look up why there is a shortage of ammo. who is buying it all up? why? What good are all the guns without the ammo?
You want conclusive evidence? I cannot provide you with a certified copy of the DHS memo where all the ammo is going, neither can I provide you with an approved academic journal reference (per your political preference) as to why there is a shortage at this time while any rational analysis would show that there should be an oversupply of the same. All I have to go by is my observations. Hence my disclaimer. Is this a false premise? Maybe. There has been a run on small arms and ammo since 2008 (rational or otherwise), enough time for the manufacturers to ramp up the inventories. How come they are scarce now? Who is leaning on them?

Providing you with “conclusive evidence” is equivalent to waking up somebody who is pretending to asleep.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=dumbrenter][quote=SK in CV][quote=dumbrenter]That said, to be clear, I have no “conclusive evidence” other than a set of correlations.[/quote]

What set of correlations leads you to the conclusion that the US “faces an either/or choice: (a) inflate massively to get out of this hole
(b) raise taxes and at the same time cut welfare across the board.”[/quote]

And what makes you think this is not an either/or choice?[/quote]

You made the assertion. You claimed you have evidence in the form of correlations. Back it up.

There are all kinds of other possibilities. Deflation. Controlled growth. A black swan event preceding a deep depression. Or even as is currently projected, slow growth leading to decreased deficits over the short term, and growing over the intermediate term. None of those require massive inflation or increased taxes/decreased welfare.[/quote]

Context, Context….You might want to re-read what I wrote. My observations about correlation relate to actions of moneyed class and general availability of arms & ammunition. This was in response to your specific question “Irrespective of that, I would think that if there is a connection between the monied crowd and gun control, it could be identified. Is Monsanto funding gun control advocacy? JP Morgan? Goldman Sachs?”

I did not make an “assertion” nor claimed “evidence”.

It would be my pleasure to provide you with my reasoning (fully acknowledging I could be wrong) but your distortion of context (deliberate or otherwise) make it harder for me to communicate with you.

Going back to what you “thought” I was referring to: deflation is already being tried, interest rates have been kept low and QE game of buying up treasuries to lower the yield is what is going on now. please enlighten us what else can be done to keep the deflation going?
I’ll discount black swan events (and alien attacks) since the very nature of those, by definition, are hard to predict and quantify.
The option of slow growth is dictated not by monetary policy but by the patience of the holders of paper assets and those countries in whose interest it is to keep buying treasuries. I honestly do not know how long they’d want to go but it cannot be forever.
so, by elimination, the only two remaining options are what I mentioned before. You can already see elements of option ‘b’ beginning this year.
Now, I’d love for you to tell my why either of those options will not be considered.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=dumbrenter]That said, to be clear, I have no “conclusive evidence” other than a set of correlations.[/quote]

What set of correlations leads you to the conclusion that the US “faces an either/or choice: (a) inflate massively to get out of this hole
(b) raise taxes and at the same time cut welfare across the board.”[/quote]

And what makes you think this is not an either/or choice?

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=dumbrenter]
Looking for conclusive evidence is both idealistic and immature. [/quote]

And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. And it would be both idealistic and immature to question its authority. Facts and evidence aren’t necessary when the “truth” is so obvious.[/quote]

Not sure if you tried wittiness or sarcasm. On the remote chance that you interpreted my sentence about idealism and immaturity to refer to you, I’d like make sure you understand that I was referring to the act of looking for it, not to you.
All I meant is that in politics & society affairs unlike science, conclusive evidence means nothing and waiting for that evidence before you act on it will be too late.
For example, if you waited for conclusive evidence about funny stuff going on with Enron or WorldCom, it would have been too late.
Humans are wired to take actions on weak correlations especially if it comes to their survival or reproduction. The caveman waiting for conclusive evidence of a cheetah waiting to pounce on him based on just an outline on a moonless night would have never made it.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=dumbrenter][quote=SK in CV]I get that CAR. Everything you’ve pasted, copied and commented on is disturbing to say the least, I’m just not seeing any connection between those with power and wealth (the government, and big business) and the anti-gun movement. If anything, they are on opposite ends of the spectrum, and unlike on some issues, they’re not meeting at the other end of the circle.[/quote]

SK, in near future the country will face an either/or choice: (a) inflate massively to get out of this hole
(b) raise taxes and at the same time cut welfare across the board.

If option (a) is chosen, it is the wealthy who get hurt since they hold most dollars, so it is unlikely they will let it happen.
If option (b) is chosen, things will come to head with middle income folks (right or left) and unlike other countries, these fellows have guns which makes things a little bit harder for the “power & wealth” class.
Hence their interest in making sure the bulk of population is emasculated before proceeding.
I am not claiming this is a fact, but just a conjecture of the connection you are looking for.[/quote]

Your options are begging the question. I’m not sure there is any conclusive evidence that the US economy faces the limited options you propose.

Irrespective of that, I would think that if there is a connection between the monied crowd and gun control, it could be identified. Is Monsanto funding gun control advocacy? JP Morgan? Goldman Sachs?[/quote]

Looking for conclusive evidence is both idealistic and immature. If you see a third or 4th option, please add to it.
By the time the conclusive evidence presents itself to you it will be too late. Obviously it is in the interest of the “monied crowd” to make sure such an evidence does not exist.

That said, to be clear, I have no “conclusive evidence” other than a set of correlations.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]I get that CAR. Everything you’ve pasted, copied and commented on is disturbing to say the least, I’m just not seeing any connection between those with power and wealth (the government, and big business) and the anti-gun movement. If anything, they are on opposite ends of the spectrum, and unlike on some issues, they’re not meeting at the other end of the circle.[/quote]

SK, in near future the country will face an either/or choice: (a) inflate massively to get out of this hole
(b) raise taxes and at the same time cut welfare across the board.

If option (a) is chosen, it is the wealthy who get hurt since they hold most dollars, so it is unlikely they will let it happen.
If option (b) is chosen, things will come to head with middle income folks (right or left) and unlike other countries, these fellows have guns which makes things a little bit harder for the “power & wealth” class.
Hence their interest in making sure the bulk of population is emasculated before proceeding.
I am not claiming this is a fact, but just a conjecture of the connection you are looking for.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Do we really need to “fear” our government since everyone who works in government swears to defend the Constitution? Would they take orders from a dictator? [/quote]

Since when is just “swearing” to defend the constitution just enough? You need arms in case those who swore did not really mean it.
For example, like the presidents (past and current) did not really have your and my privacy needs in mind when they ordered a wide ranging snooping program against who they get their paycheck from.

[Author]

Posts