Politics 2015

[Tweedling]

I liked O'malley the best. Sanders seems like he doesn't like our country. Clinton looked great.

[Winston Legthigh]

I'm getting sick of Hillary's forced photo-op face - the one where her mouth is wide open like she's SO EXCITED!!!!!

 

[KevinG]

I'm getting sick of Hillary's forced photo-op face - the one where her mouth is wide open like she's SO EXCITED!!!!!

 

 

Hillary is not a real human.  She is a genetically engineered cyborg from the future, sent back in time to prevent the disasters of a Donald Trump Presidency.  

[tinnitus photography]

Ok, build enough prisons to hold the 1 million gang members in the United States. There are 150,000 in Chicago alone. That'll be a good start.

 

if you haven't heard this, i highly recommend it (parts 1 and 2).

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/487/harper-high-school-part-one

 

 

clearly, there are a lot of things in play here wrt to gun violence and gangs.

edit - i see Lost Highway already spoke to these things.

[tinnitus photography]

Indeed. We need more untrained civilians shooting first and asking questions later. Too bad she wasn't in Oregon.

http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/

[NoJ]

After watching last nights debate, I'm feeling the Bern. Sanders came off as genuine, Hill a polished, bought off Washington insider. Chafee was hilarious. Webb actually bragged about killing a man...that was a first for presidential debate history. I watched it with 10 other people. The decision was unanimous. Bernie won that round.

[calvino]

Compared to 8 years ago  - Clinton did much better this time around.

 

Sanders did come off a little like the "I am mad as hell" character -- i did think it was genuine,  but he might want to tone it down a bit. I am sure his base loved his performance, though - those who are not fully convince by him, maybe not so much.

Right now I an edging towards his camp, though.

 

and yeah - Chafee and Webb were pretty awful.

[tinnitus photography]

Chafee should just quit right now.

[Hixter]

http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/

An exceedingly lame article. Their "tactical experts" include a soldier who spent less than a year as an artillery forward observer in Iraq. That doesn't make him an expert any more than it makes my many friends who served in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan experts, and not one of them would argue for tighter gun control. I think the "expert's" self-described activities as an activist and Obama campaign worker are what qualified him to be quoted in the story.

 

The article's main focus is "the NRA’s Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy" but I maintain that said fantasy exists only in the minds of gun control advocates. Nobody expects every mass shooting to be ended by an armed civilian. Those of us opposed to the incessant tide of proposed legislation that does nothing to solve the problem are merely fighting the government's attempts to interfere with our right to self defense. That's it. I have no "heroic gunslinger fantasy" but if I ever find myself in a mass shooting situation, I'd much rather be armed than unarmed.

 

The article tries to make the point that only heavily trained people would be capable of responding properly in the case of a mass shooting, but it conveniently ignores that fact that 25% of American men are military veterans who have undergone such training.

 

The irony of gun control advocates sneering at “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun” never fails to amuse me, as nearly every mass shooting has ended only when the shooter was confronted by a good guy with a gun.

[lost highway]

 

Those of us opposed to the incessant tide of proposed legislation that does nothing to solve the problem are merely fighting the government's attempts to interfere with our right to self defense. That's it. I have no "heroic gunslinger fantasy" but if I ever find myself in a mass shooting situation, I'd much rather be armed than unarmed.

 

The irony of gun control advocates sneering at “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun” never fails to amuse me, as nearly every mass shooting has ended only when the shooter was confronted by a good guy with a gun.

 

 

I have veered from blatantly anti-gun, to being somewhat of a sympathizer who is still in favor of some serious reform.  I find the self-defense argument to be the worst reason.  You can't really sideline the "gunslinger fantasy" and then talk "good guy with a gun" in the same breath.

 

Talk about freedom, better still talk about recreation, talk about the biological need for hunting- these are seasonal uses, not hypothetical.  Self-defense is the most far-fetched purpose a firearm in your home could have.  The statistics don't support the horribly infrequent success of this, in contrast with the high cost of the right.

 

http://www.vpc.org/press/self-defense-gun-use-is-rare-study-finds/

 

The "self-defense gun" has a higher chance of becoming the "accident gun", or the suicide device (incidentally I find that to be a right).

[Hixter]

You can't really sideline the "gunslinger fantasy" and then talk "good guy with a gun" in the same breath.

It's very easy, actually. The first is a hypothetical creation of the anti-gun lobby, while the second is a cold, hard fact: mass shootings end when the perpetrator is confronted by someone carrying a gun. The majority of the time that person is a cop, but he/she is still "a good guy with a gun."

 

Talk about freedom, better still talk about recreation, talk about the biological need for hunting- these are seasonal uses, not hypothetical.

Those are all discussed frequently, but quite often they are denounced to varying degrees, including "hunting is murder" and accusations of gun fetishes.

 

Self-defense is the most far-fetched purpose a firearm in your home could have.  The statistics don't support the horribly infrequent success of this, in contrast with the high cost of the right.

 

http://www.vpc.org/press/self-defense-gun-use-is-rare-study-finds/

 

The "self-defense gun" has a higher chance of becoming the "accident gun", or the suicide device (incidentally I find that to be a right).

Self-defense is one of the most important purposes of a firearm. Guns literally save lives every single day in this country. As far as statistics about self-defense are concerned, I'd just like to make this point: I don't give a damn about statistics if my life is on the line. Statistics be damned, I will thank my lucky stars if I'm the one-in-a-million case where I use a gun to save my life. 

 

The article you linked to is full of glaring omissions. It enumerates justified homicides, but not justified shootings. Nor does it cover the times that a gun prevented/ended a crime, but you can get a feel for the figures if you're willing to do the math. The article states that only 0.1% of property crime victims use a gun, but with 9,000,000+ property crimes per year, that means that more than 9,000 victims of property crime defend themselves with a gun every year - just about the same number of firearm murders per year. So why doesn't the headline read "For every firearm murder, an American defends himself with a gun"? Add in the published rate of self-defense for violent crimes and you come up with another 9,000 instances. So why aren't gun control advocates informing Americans that there are at least twice as many instances of guns used in self-defense (the actual number is probably much higher) as gun murders?

 

As for suicide, I agree with you. If there's one right that we have as human beings, it's the right to decide our own existence. Suicide figures have no place in discussion of gun crime.

[lost highway]

So wait... you don't care about statistics, or you're interested in critiquing them at great length?

[KevinG]

So wait... you don't care about statistics, or you're interested in critiquing them at great length?

I think it statistics that directly contradict a firmly held belief. And that is why we will never get anywhere on gun violence.

[ih8music]

Sanders did come off a little like the "I am mad as hell" character -- i did think it was genuine,  but he might want to tone it down a bit. I am sure his base loved his performance, though - those who are not fully convince by him, maybe not so much.

Right now I an edging towards his camp, though.

 

I love Bernie and closely align with his positions on nearly every issue.  However, I agree that his demeanor does little to help his image among folks who know nothing about him other than that he's a Socialist* and that's a Bad Scary Thing To Be.  *Of course, he's actually a Democratic Socialist and that's a quite different thing -- but that nuance is meaningless to most Americans.

 

O'Malley was fine I guess (have you heard he's got an energy plan?) but he finished strong with the closing remarks.  He deserves to stick around.

 

Webb was a fish out of water wearing a collar three sizes too small.  Painful to watch him squirm and struggle.  

 

Chafee was so embarrassing last night that I wouldn't elect him to be my neighborhood watch captain. 

 

Hillary was solid, poised & prepared.  This is what she's great at and last night was no difference.

 

I guess last night just confirmed what I suspected would end up being the case for me eventually... my heart is with Sanders, but my head is with Clinton.  She certainly has her own baggage and issues, but she'd have a much easier path to winning the election than Bernie.

 

And can we finally put the Biden talk to rest now?

[calvino]

Also, Sanders is going to have come up with a solid/coherent answer regarding his gun stance, too -- he seemed totally surprised/flabbergasted, when this discussion came up -- he must have known that the issue was going to come up and if he didn't know, he needs to fire the person who was in charge to get him ready for the debate. I fully understand his stance - since he is from Vermont - he just needs to explain it much better and not be so defensive.

[jff]

I read somewhere yesterday that Sanders did nothing to prepare for the debate, so there's nobody to fire.

[calvino]

Well he is going to have to start preparing, then.

[tinnitus photography]

An exceedingly lame article. Their "tactical experts" include a soldier who spent less than a year as an artillery forward observer in Iraq. That doesn't make him an expert any more than it makes my many friends who served in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan experts, and not one of them would argue for tighter gun control. I think the "expert's" self-described activities as an activist and Obama campaign worker are what qualified him to be quoted in the story.

 

The article's main focus is "the NRA’s Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy" but I maintain that said fantasy exists only in the minds of gun control advocates. Nobody expects every mass shooting to be ended by an armed civilian. Those of us opposed to the incessant tide of proposed legislation that does nothing to solve the problem are merely fighting the government's attempts to interfere with our right to self defense. That's it. I have no "heroic gunslinger fantasy" but if I ever find myself in a mass shooting situation, I'd much rather be armed than unarmed.

 

The article tries to make the point that only heavily trained people would be capable of responding properly in the case of a mass shooting, but it conveniently ignores that fact that 25% of American men are military veterans who have undergone such training.

 

The irony of gun control advocates sneering at “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun” never fails to amuse me, as nearly every mass shooting has ended only when the shooter was confronted by a good guy with a gun.

the Dirty Harry/Charles Bronson vigilante mindset runs a lot deeper than you think it does. 

 

if we are trading anecdotes, a good friend of mine who was in the air force and did multiple stints in Iraq and Afghanistan felt this article was 100% on target.

 

 

 

i have no problem with the good guys w/ guns being people have undergone serious and comprehensive training on how to use one, not only in the sterile environment of a shooting range, but in real life situations. those people are called policeman. no need for Ronnie Rambo-wannabe to feel he's just as qualified to take out his concealed weapon and start putting holes in things around him.

 

25% of american men are ex-military and are heavily trained to respond correctly in the event of a mass shooting?

[KevinG]

the Dirty Harry/Charles Bronson vigilante mindset runs a lot deeper than you think it does. 

 

if we are trading anecdotes, a good friend of mine who was in the air force and did multiple stints in Iraq and Afghanistan felt this article was 100% on target.

 

 

 

i have no problem with the good guys w/ guns being people have undergone serious and comprehensive training on how to use one, not only in the sterile environment of a shooting range, but in real life situations. those people are called policeman. no need for Ronnie Rambo-wannabe to feel he's just as qualified to take out his concealed weapon and start putting holes in things around him.

 

25% of american men are ex-military and are heavily trained to respond correctly in the event of a mass shooting?

 

I was gonna post pretty much the exact same thing.  

 

I would be fine with good guy with a gun argument if every person who bought a gun would be required to take an extensive training on how to properly use firearms.  

 

Also the good guy with a gun argument is again very reactionary.  While in theory it would stop an active shooter situation.  It does nothing to prevent that situation.  It will still result in someone dying or being injured.  The focus should be on prevention.  And no, conceal carry does not reduce crime.    

[tinnitus photography]

 

http://www.theonion.com/article/obama-paranoid-government-coming-for-his-guns-30638

[Lammycat]

Man, that couch is soooooo outdated.

[KevinG]

Man, that couch is soooooo outdated.

 

My roommates and I had that same couch when we were in college.  We called it the broccoli sofa of love.  

[Lammycat]

To keep with the photoshop theme of the picture, it'd be nice to add in Edith Bunker teetering around the corner with a worried look on her face and her hands to her cheeks....

[NoJ]

Stifle!

[KevinG]

So it looks like Biden is not running for President.  Which is really too bad.  I think he was the best candidate out there.  It will be interesting to see where his supporters go.  More than likely they will head towards Clinton.  

 

Speaking of the former Sec of State, she will have an interesting week testifying at the committee to derail Clinton  Benghazi hearing.  

 

To put this in perspective the Benghazi select committee has spent millions of taxpayer dollars and countless hours of questioning/testimony on the tragic deaths of 4 Americans, but yet to have any serious committees/inquiries on gun violence (since the GOP took control of the House).  So you know priorities.