Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Tell me about it. My textbooks cost somewhere around $75-100 a piece on average for the IT classes I am currently taking.
But the same can hold true for any field, including media reports on what historians say.
I pretty much don't trust anything journolists (sic) say/eport about anything even remotely academic and most of what they report as news.
I have my own opinions about this issue and would like to flush some things out. Donnie and Scout, you said you are against the ordinary restrictions on fully autos. Would you extend this to opposing restrictions on private ownership of artillery? RPG launchers? Tanks? Basically, I am curious about what you would prohibit, if anything, in terms of weaponry, and whether your opposition is based on the Second Amendment or some other source.
I think I should be able to buy whatever hardware I can afford. The purpose of the 2nd is to allow the citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. If a citizen is not allowed to possess comparable hardware to the military how can we effectively defend ourselves if the government ever descends into tyranny?I understand the public safety arguments for gun control. I just vehemently disagree with them. To me my freedom and defense of same outweighs the possibility that the occasional lunatic will commit mass murder. I understand that sounds cold and I make no apologies for it.The power of central government historically has only increased. If guns are taken out of the hands of ordinary citizens what guarantee of our rights do we have? I generally trust government but we the people are the final arbiters of whether it is serving out needs are we not?
No I didn't. We have touched on the subject of mental illness a few times in this thread.
We didn't touch on it, you did. Besides, mental illness is just a niche issue used to open up gun control and put it on the table, if that doesn't work you will bring up convicted felons. Law abiding gun owners are ignored when gun control comes up. This is asinine as the number of people who own guns and never murder someone vastly outnumbers criminal gun owners. You better some up with something better than it might work to justify curtailing the rights of millions.
So all the other murders don't count?
And how often are guns used to prevent or stop crimes?
I seriously think that citizens should be able to buy fully automatic rifles without the Class III crap.
I agree with you 100%
Probably have could prevented those nutcases from AZ or the Batman movie. If there was a background check, they likely would have found a history of mental illness.
You do realize you are doing the same thing you occasionally accuse liberals of? That is, changing the terms of a debate mid stream. We were talking about what laws, old or new, that would have stopped the guy in Newtown absent an outright ban.Separately, I don't think you have made a compelling case for stricter gun laws to begin with. 3 massacres killing less than 50 people in 1 year in a nation of 300 million people do not make a wave. The media has sure done a good job of sensationalizing and raising "awareness" of a largely non-existent problem haven't they. Don't get me wrong, I feel very deeply for the children and families of those killed. However, the politicization of their tragedy to advance the liberal agenda makes me sick and furthers justifies why I despise modern liberals. "Never let a crisis go to waste" indeed!
The objection is that mentally ill people have easy access to guns in some states. Schizophrenic? Domestic abuser? No problem. Just go to a gun show where you can get whatever gun you want and bring it home immediately, no questions asked.If I needed a background check in RI to purchase a gun it should be the same for all.
So you are not making objections based on the particular case from Newtown? The shooter there obtained his guns illegally. In fact, he killed his own mother to obtain the weapons. You did not answer my question: I repeat, what stricter gun laws, outside a ban, would have stopped the guy in Connecticut? Answer, none.
Profiting from the idiocy of others is always sweet is it not? ;D That has happened to me with a couple of the Amazon book links I put up on my site too. I don't know how much I have made from that but it is not much. I have not wised up the chumps either though.
Analysis is the historians forte. I swear sometimes we learned a different historical method.Every document should be analyzed critically, I have never said otherwise. I have also never said that we should assume the writers of historical documents are liars. I must be much worse at putting my thoughts in words than I thought.I just think we should look at everything critically and base its credibility on that critical analysis. I dislike archaeology because that element o critical analysis often seems to be missing. Especially in pieces reported in the news. I do not know if that is because of crappy journalism, crappy archaeology or a combination of the two. I read some scholarly archaeology pieces too, mainly battlefield archaeology I do know that I rarely see any archaeologists go out of their way to correct the sensationalism reported to the media, I dislike that most of all. That is not to say that there are not some historians who are not as bad, just turn on the History channel to see what I am talking about. Academia and academic work appears to go two ways, serious scholarship that is only really available and understandable to initiates, and popular that dumbs stuff down so the peasants and serfs can kind of maybe grasp what the big brains are talking about. I advocate for a middle approach where scholars are critical and rigorous and not afraid to admit that some things we just don't know. Academics are not infallible, only God can claim that, but the way they present academics in poplar media you would think they were.
I repeat, what stricter gun laws, outside a ban, would have stopped the guy in Connecticut? Answer, none. Gun Laws are only obeyed by law abiding citizens. If you have made up your mind on mass murder you will find a way. I personally know of a minimum of five different methods to make explosives from common household chemicals. I can even make a firearm from plumbing pipe, it may only be good for one or two shots but that is one dead individual.The objection is not to guns per se, it is that he killed 26 people, most children. people naturally recoil from the horror of that. The sad part is that we are so regressed that immediately people start making calls for the government to do something. Wha? What can the government do without trampling over everybody else's rights? The answer is nothing. The idiots calling for stricter regulation are the same ones who think the joke at the airport makes them safer. They don't want effective measures, they want visible measures.I for one, am not willing to give up my rights so cowards who are unwilling or unable to defend themselves or those in their charge can feel better. Keep your hands off my rocket launcher, I have never killed anybody that did not deserve it and I don't plan on starting anytime soon. Neither do millions of fellow gun owners so why are we supposed to shoulder the burden and pay for the acts of this one moron? By all means take all the guns away from criminals, I am with you there. Unless and until I or my fellow gun owners commit a crime why should we give ours up?
