tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post8670265020353794772..comments2023-10-30T06:31:05.501-07:00Comments on MilPub: Defining the ProblemFDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-82129933808039176162013-01-06T09:56:00.061-08:002013-01-06T09:56:00.061-08:00bag over head
Jamesbag over head<br />JamesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-45758605935304558042013-01-06T08:29:52.990-08:002013-01-06T08:29:52.990-08:00James,
jim and hruska are 1 person, so that makes ...James,<br />jim and hruska are 1 person, so that makes me double dogged.<br />HNY,<br />jim hruska aka rawrangeragainstwarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02126542922536584950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-73360466505198076282013-01-04T13:42:11.985-08:002013-01-04T13:42:11.985-08:00RAW Jim, and Mr. Hruska. I applaud you on your do...RAW Jim, and Mr. Hruska. I applaud you on your doggedness. Though I disagree with you two gentlemen, any debate needs to have all sides considered. You do it well and are polite. Something we need on the "internets." If we can't debate but rather go to confirmation bias websites nothing will ever get accomplished. I realize you are just as concerned as any here on reducing violence. I want PDKhan to post more articles.<br /><br />JamesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-60977972738371238632013-01-04T05:12:21.768-08:002013-01-04T05:12:21.768-08:00(continued)
I am willing to admit that the genera...(continued)<br /><br />I am willing to admit that the general population, with help from special interest groups, vast amounts of special interest money and a profound reliance on “belief” versus intellect, are not interested in a solution, unless it imposes no limitations on individual desires. However, I will not allow that admission to lead me to be intellectually derelict. As a friend back in the States once said, “The Creator spent His good time and effort designing a brain and installing it in my head. I’m not going to tell Him, thanks, but I can do better on my own.”<br /><br />I don’t claim to know the answers. I'm just willing to entertain any and all questions possible until we have a better understanding of what the hell is going on, if anything. And I don’t claim that we can do anything once we know more. Just saying it’s worth a look. An honest look, which I never said would be easy.<br />Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-16431322083308397392013-01-04T05:11:29.172-08:002013-01-04T05:11:29.172-08:00Andy- "I don't pretend to know the causa...Andy- <i><b>"I don't pretend to know the causality for these differences. What I am confident about is that the simplistic, linear arguments about guns and violence, either pro or con, don't come close to telling the whole story."</b></i><br /><br />No argument. jim has raised a very valid question by titling this thread "defining the problem". I have tried to point out that the "problem" cannot be defined if any aspect is ruled out of the equation. Having spent a few years practicing multivariate analyses, I know that unless you control for as many variables as possible, any conclusions will be weak, if not just plain spurious.<br /><br />It is a huge task to compare societies. As often discussed, rape statistics are based upon reporting rates. Is the significantly higher per capita incidence of RAPE IN Sweden vs the US do to reporting levels or just a more violent male population? Are rapes more or less likely to be reported in the military as compared to the population at large. Since unreported rapes are not a matter of record, one can only assume.<br /><br />Fatalities, however, tend to have, at least in most "civilized countries", a very accurate reporting rate. With a more accurate data set, it becomes easier to do an analysis. From there, as host of other variables enter into the equation – armed robberies gone wrong, vendettas, weapon used, etc.<br /><br />However, if we are going to try to use existing data to analyze for correlations in the realm of violence (see below re: "correlation"), then the more variables we can enter into the equation the more correlations and predictors we can rule in or rule out. Consider an analysis on earning potential. Ruling out the inclusion of gender and/or race, I’m sure you would agree, would give a very poor predictor for the earning potential for black females in general, or if race and/or gender have any impact at all. Or if race is a predictor due to education trends within a given race. And so on.<br /><br />I say "correlation" in so far as a controlled experiment in violence would be a difficult ethical task. In order to test a hypothesis of whether or not a given weapon “encourages” violence, you would have to allow the act of violence by people armed with one type of weapon versus a cohort not so armed. Thus, we tend to be limited to ex post facto research, which, in the field of human behavior, tends to be more amenable to finding correlation than causation. However, one can then take a “safe” approach to interpreting the correlation by applying policy which sees if a given approach, based on a correlation, reduces the undesired behaviors. In short, the only valid way to see if Canadian style laws would reduce firearms homicides in the US, would be to implement such laws and see, over time, what happens. Not saying this is a plausible policy decision, but just a valid approach to social science. Ranting about “bad cops”, invasions of foreign countries, etc as an excuse to remove a “sacred cow” from the equation is intellectually irresponsible and simply “Junk Science”. But then, we Americans have almost as much of a love affair with Junk Science as we do with guns, so is it no surprise that we use one mistress to protect the other?<br /><br />(to be continued)<br /><br />Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-1101039118743957252013-01-03T19:22:28.033-08:002013-01-03T19:22:28.033-08:00Al,
Why is the US an unusually violent society?
...Al,<br /><br /><em>Why is the US an unusually violent society?</em><br /><br />Not an easy question to answer, especially since violence is more than just murder. <br /><br />The statistic's aren't totally reliable given data and reporting differences, but from what I've read, the US is comparatively a lot better in terms of rape and robberies than much of Europe but is worse in assaults except, perhaps, for the UK (having lived in the UK, I can tell you that assaults are very common). Again, hard to tell for sure though since data are far from perfect which makes valid comparisons difficult. <br /><br />Murder is easier to compare since it is easy to quantify than other types of violent crime and we know the stats there. But digging a bit deeper, it's important to note that much of the homicide problem is concentrated in parts of larger urban areas - most places in the US are very safe. <br /><br /><br />As to your question, I do think it's about culture. I think a lot of it is attributable to the legacy of slavery. Some is due to our history of immigration and the nature of the internal conflicts from the "melting pot." And we are a political union without the social advantages of a homogeneous nation-state that most European nations enjoy. <br /><br />The ease of gun access probably makes all these issues worse than they otherwise would be. But generalizing is problematic - When it comes to guns every place in America is not the same. I grew up in Colorado in a distinctly western cultural tradition. Guns were "normal" and not viewed as a problem. There is still a lot of that attitude in the west. There are a lot of small and mid-sized western towns with very high rates of gun ownership, yet very low crime rates.<br /><br />I don't pretend to know the causality for these differences. What I am confident about is that the simplistic, linear arguments about guns and violence, either pro or con, don't come close to telling the whole story.Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-21183373939105635252013-01-03T13:44:40.141-08:002013-01-03T13:44:40.141-08:00In fact, so easy that 67% of US homicides are with...In fact, so easy that 67% of US homicides are with firearms.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-62170119813709609812013-01-03T12:21:46.892-08:002013-01-03T12:21:46.892-08:00I would argue, rather, that we are a society with ...I would argue, rather, that we are a society with unparalleled private access to simple, effective ways to kill other private citizens.<br /><br />Are we more "unusually violent" than the Mongols were in Poland? Are we more "unusually violent" than the Russians when they killed thousands of Jews in pogroms? Or Turks when they massacred tens of thousands of Armenians?<br /><br />I doubt it. Humans have always been violent; that's one of the reasons that "governments are instituted among Men" - to control that shit.<br /><br />So I'd suggest that Al's tracking numbers have a LOT to do with "how violent we are". Killing another human with a knife, or an axe, or your hands is damn difficult. With a firearm?<br /><br />Easy peasy lemon squeezy.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-66059538802322490782013-01-03T11:10:25.472-08:002013-01-03T11:10:25.472-08:00jim: - "Your stats on US gun ownership are me...jim: - <i><b>"Your stats on US gun ownership are meaningless UNLESS it's broken down by type of weapons."</b></i><br /><br />Rather than rest on my "beliefs", as you say you do, I clearly stated:<br /><br /><i><b><br />There are a hell of a lot of variables to control for to even begin to come to any conclusions about violence alone, no less the contribution of specific means,....</b></i><br /><br />and I added, because it is statistically true:<br /><br /><i><b>but you can't control for a variable that is a "sacred cow".</b></i><br /><br />I deny no one their right to "beliefs". But when they try to assert them as "proof positive", I walk away.<br /><br />I would also note, jim, that you are going to find that those who state the Bible is infallible and literal also tend to hold the Constitution in the same regard, or at least the 2nd Amendment. Trying to paint American "Christianity" with a single brush stroke is a joke, as there are some 30,000 "denominations" of same that obviously are not in universal agreement, or there'd only be one. Time to do some reading, my friend. Your "beliefs" about their "beliefs" are far from factual.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-75285528915301801292013-01-03T09:15:32.013-08:002013-01-03T09:15:32.013-08:00Al,
Your stats on US gun ownership are meaningless...Al,<br />Your stats on US gun ownership are meaningless UNLESS it's broken down by type of weapons.<br />The vast majority of guns in America are curios and collectors.<br />I will believe this until proven otherwise.<br />Figures lie and liars figure.<br />We have had police shootings here in Tall Fl where local police have cut loose with MP 5's in fast food parking lots. This on full auto mode. They weren't discharged or disciplined.The blue wall rules. We have had zero citizen mp5 's loosed anywhere in town.<br />You believe what you want about police violence , but try to get stats on police violence , or on the number of folks killed by LE and it's difficult to find. Look for police deaths and the figures are centralized.<br />At the Fl FDLE training center the swats wear cutsie black t shirts with sniper cross hairs with people in the center. Their reverse says-"we still make house calls" with the picture of a team busting down a homes door with a battering ram.<br />This may not cause you concern Al , but it seems clear to me that this goes beyond the concept of protecting and serving.They wear these shirts in my cities restaurants.<br />The swat team members shop in grocery stores with their gun fighter crap hanging from their bodies.<br />Not good.IMO.<br />My check of Canadian law shows auto belt feds as being controlled,BUT still available to shooters. Canada has IPSC shoots.<br />Maybe i'm reading this wrong!<br />bg,<br />imo the constitution allows the states to have gun laws , but i cannot find any mention of local or city govt's having this power.<br />jim<br />To all, I find it interesting that the folks that hold the Const. as a living breathing mutable document fail to apply the same elasticity to the bible.<br />I think we are violent b/c our Christianity encourages just war and killing.<br />I have a art on guns at RAW today, but didn't inflict this on you all.<br />jim<br /><br /><br />jim hruskahttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-22642754463510510252013-01-02T14:36:52.839-08:002013-01-02T14:36:52.839-08:00As to "violence" the US does top the dev...As to "violence" the US does top the developed "western" countries in murder, at 4.2 per 100k population. Gun ownership in the US is 88.8 per 100 population<br /><br />Some others, in descending order (With guns per 100 pop in parens): Israel - 2.1 (7.3), Belgium - 1.7 (17.2), Canada - 1.6 (30.8), Greece - 1.5 (22.5), UK - 1.2 (6.2), Italy 0.9 (11.9) and Germany 0.8 (30.3)<br /><br />Obviously not a linear relationship, but we do have nearly 3 times as many guns per 100 people as Canada and Germany, and 2.6 and 5.3 times higher murder rate than the two respectively.<br /><br />There are a hell of a lot of variables to control for to even begin to come to any conclusions about violence alone, no less the contribution of specific means, but you can't control for a variable that is a "sacred cow". As you point out, I am just offering fatalities as a measure, not all serious assault.<br /><br />And, any reduction in this violence is going to have to arise from within the society. The abolition question in the US, unlike Great Britain some 50 years prior, was addressed by violence, was it not? And Britain probably profited more from the slave trade than any other nation.<br /><br />I don't know the answers, but one question seems quite clear: Why is the US an unusually violent society?Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-27964187302643960152013-01-02T13:31:13.058-08:002013-01-02T13:31:13.058-08:00Al, thanks for the perspective. It is a frustrati...Al, thanks for the perspective. It is a frustrating conversation because I don't feel I am any closer to understanding why US is more violent than other cultures (assuming it is) and what can feasibly be done if we determine that the 2nd Amendment needs to be updated and that the availability of guns is the problem. <br /><br />I wonder if abolitionists were equally frustrated pre-1860. Is that fair analogy? If so, it is going to be a long road before we see real movement on this one.bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-10522427880029097532013-01-02T08:26:48.780-08:002013-01-02T08:26:48.780-08:00(continued)
I'm not sure there is an "av...(continued)<br /><br />I'm not sure there is an "average American's feelings", as "feelings" are not interval quantities. The nature of our governance should be a "majority" issue, unless some fundamental rights are involved, but then, what's a "fundamental right", and do some rights take precedence over others? If unfettered access to any and all firearms is the foremost "fundamental right", then we simply have to live with what people choose to do with these "tools". Personally, and only personally, I do not see having to arm myself to protect my stereo as Liberty nor the Pursuit of Happiness. I see it as human ugliness. I got shooting at others with fatal intent out of my system in RVN.<br /><br />As one of my profs said, "Some things that seem to be engraved in stone are just the accidents of history". I would offer, since it is unique to the US versus all other "modern" states, that the 2nd Amendment might very well be an accident of history, now affording "rights" and involving firepower levels that the authors could never have imagined, no less intended. But those guys are long dead and gone, so any attempt to ascribe eternally precise intent to that one sentence is pure and simple bullshit, as they aren't here to ask for their views based on today's world. Again, those guys thought slavery was spot on and noble, but gave us Article 5 knowing that they could be wrong on specific bits and pieces, either in initial intent, or as a result of a changing world. To me, that's the greatest wisdom of the authors of the Constitution - the admission of human frailty admitted freely by Article 5. By it's very design, it is a work in progress.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-10224134795545976242013-01-02T08:22:52.977-08:002013-01-02T08:22:52.977-08:00bg
We lived for 15 years close to the WA - BC bor...bg<br /><br />We lived for 15 years close to the WA - BC border and made numerous friends in BC, both military and civilian. Spent at least 2 months every summer cruising Canadian waters and mingling with the inhabitants. Significantly different culture. I wish I could remember which of Burton's 30 some books addressed the "Birthing" difference, but if you wish, he did 2 volumes on the War of 1812, and I think it surfaces in there, as well as his volume on the Trans-Canada Railroad. Even if I have the volumes wrong, his writing is splendid and well worth the read.<br /><br />I'd also note that Britain and Canada had nearly a century to observe events south of the border before crafting the BNA of 1868. Perhaps they learned something "constitutional" and "cultural" from our evolution up to and through the Civil War?<br /><br />As I mentioned above, my initial opinion toward firearms was formed by Boy Scout marksmanship ("Bull's Eye" not "human silhouette" targets) and safety training. While there was one WWI and numerous WWII and Korea vets in my family, none were "hunters" or "gun collectors", so household firearms were not the norm. We did have registered pistols for those who carried the family business receipts and payrolls to and from the bank, but those were kept in the safes at the business locations, and the folks who carried them were licensed and underwent a training program by the Sheriff's dept.<br /><br />My 6 uncles were all either auxillary police volunteers or Civil Defense wardens in the late 40's and 50's. Funny thing is that the combat vets chose the unarmed CD, while the non combat vets were armed auxillary police (weapons kept at the village police station).<br /><br />Yet, I was encouraged to participate in Boy Scout marksmanship and safety training. Probably to gain the same respect for firearms found in the rest of the family.<br /><br />In my six years in the Corps, we referred to our personally assigned firearms as "weapons", as that was the purpose of the firearms we were issued. Marksmanship was a sign of the profession, not a hobby or "sport" at the time. If you were damn good, you were expected to represent your unit in competition to display professional competence.<br /><br />So, my "bursting radius" experience with fire arms was focused either on the discipline of marksmanship or use as a "weapon", and I did both.<br /><br />A firearm is, indeed, a "tool", bg. However, it is a multi-purpose tool, based on what the user wishes to do with it. In the military, we try to maximize the firepower of our forces by providing them with more capable "tools" so that a given size force can deliver the greatest possible fire upon the enemy. <br /><br />Canada seems to feel that such a level of firepower is not needed by the populace to have "peace and order", so via "good government" (according to their cultural norms) they set limits on civilian firepower. Thus, to receive a permit for certain firearms for "home defense", you have to make a solid case that existing police protection is significantly inadequate. Not a commonly issued permit.<br /><br />(To be continued)Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-82556274300413398082013-01-02T06:47:27.596-08:002013-01-02T06:47:27.596-08:00Al, so if Canadians are not as violent as American...Al, so if Canadians are not as violent as Americans, how do you explain hockey? :)<br /><br />I guess I have a hard time accepting that there are such significant cultural and psychological differences between Americans and Canadians based on how their government was formed. <br /><br />I don't know, I guess I don't know enough Canadians to draw a conclusion on Canadian culture or their tendency to violence. (maybe that is the problem, all the Canadians that I know I meet playing hockey). I only have statistics without enough context to understand them. <br /><br />And as far as the American problem, I think it is hard for someone like me in the military to understand: <br /><br />1. How the average American thinks/feels <br />2. How anyone can see a gun as anything other than a tool, therefore, the fault lies with (or within) the userbgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-16284781756339951182013-01-02T06:22:17.437-08:002013-01-02T06:22:17.437-08:00bg
US as compared to Canada. One hint can be gai...bg<br /><br />US as compared to Canada. One hint can be gained from what the actual "Birthing Process" was and what the "Birthing Document" said each of the two governments were established to provide:<br /><br />Birthing Process:<br /><br /><i><b>Violent Revolution</b></i><br /><br />vs-<br /><br /><i><b>A Rational Act of Parliament</b></i><br /><br /><br />Purpose of government:<br /><br /><i><b>Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness</b></i><br /><br />vs-<br /><br /><i><b>Peace, Order and Good Government.</b></i><br /><br />Violence is not as prevalent in Canada to begin with.<br /><br />A portion of Americans probably own firearms for a violent reason, as protection of the home with a firearm is, of itself a violent form of protection. Canada never had anything resembling the 2nd Amendment or a notion of unrestricted rights to any and all firearms. Canada today has 1/3 the number of firearms per capita that the US has, and pretty comprehensive firearms laws. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada#Classification_of_firearms)<br /><br />I would venture to guess that two factors come into play in Canadians generally accepting firearms limitations: Reasonable (in the population's view) restrictions that provided for the general well being from before "Day One", and "Peace, Order and Good Government".<br /><br />My thanks to the eminent Canadian historian, the late Pierre Burton, for the "Birthing" understanding. Ever since reading him, my understanding of the two countries has improved.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-14727111098543524542013-01-02T03:55:46.872-08:002013-01-02T03:55:46.872-08:00Ok, beyond the rhetorical questions I submitted ab...Ok, beyond the rhetorical questions I submitted above, here is what really perplexes me:<br /><br />How are Americans different from Canadians? Why do they have such a significantly lower number of deaths from gun violence? bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-90407520957673331522013-01-02T03:51:05.223-08:002013-01-02T03:51:05.223-08:00I agree with the statements above about the 2nd am...I agree with the statements above about the 2nd amendment, until there is a SCOTUS ruling that better defines it, the individual will always win. So the questions that jim posted about who should be allowed to have guns is a tough one. <br /><br />Because I think that is unrealistic, I don't think we will see any effective Federal laws. IMO, good, stop trying. Allow states and local governments to make laws that work for them. Ranchers in Montana should not be under the same restrictions as a banker in NYC. I see no issue with "gun free zones" established by local governments. If an urban city wants to impose a gun ban within city limits, go for it. Good luck trying to enforce it, but it could work. For those who want guns for hunting and for shooting ranges, I bet entrepreneurs can set up gun lockers at ranges or outside city limits for hunters. <br /><br />Another question for jim to add, beyond do we have a gun problem. Reminds me of when we had a commanding General come to our HQ, and we were trying to convince him to give us money to build a new parking lot. What we wanted was a parking lot closer to the building, we had enough spots, but they were across a soccer field. The CG said, "You don't have a parking problem, you have a walking problem."<br /><br />Are we defining the problem correctly? Do we have a gun problem? Or are we, as suggested above, just simply a more violent society? Sadly, I think we are. And I don't feel it has anything to do with violent video games, that is just a symptom, and our violent nature has been our history (native Americans, lynchings, etc, etc). The US is 2nd in the world in reported rapes, and 1st if you normalize by population. 82,000 woman a year report being raped. The gun violence stats that we throw around, those are only deaths. What about gun inflicted wounds? If you can use current battlefield survival rates as a rough guide, there have to be at least 7-8 Americans wounded per every homicide victim. <br /><br />Ideally, the way to solve the problem is to remove all guns from America. That won't happen. IMO, gun restrictions and better handling laws will work like pad locks. They will keep honest people honest. Not saying we shouldn't try it, but they won't be terribly effective and won't be addressing the root problem. How can we determine if we are truly a more violent society, and if so, how do we become less violent? If we can honestly say that we are no less violent than other countries, then perhaps the anti-gun people are right, and all we have to do is turn in our guns and we will live happily ever after.bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-38679466958086719262013-01-01T10:10:53.436-08:002013-01-01T10:10:53.436-08:00jim
I would also note that in many US jurisdictio...jim<br /><br />I would also note that in many US jurisdictions, a police officer who discharges a firearm, without regard to whether or not someone is killed or injured as a result, is usually subject to a more intense investigation than a home owner to kills an intruder with a firearm. So, don't raise the red herring of what LEOs may or may not be armed with. They will generally be held much more accountable than someone hiding behind a "Stand your ground law", where the person shot is generally considered "guilty until proven innocent."Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-72192873085514752752013-01-01T10:05:52.218-08:002013-01-01T10:05:52.218-08:00jim
A major "problem" is American socie...jim<br /><br />A major "problem" is American society's predilection for pure and simple violence upon our fellow man, at home and abroad. Hell, violence is an all too frequent answer to someone cutting in ahead of another person on the freeway.<br /><br />Without weapons of any sort, the ability to perform violence would be limited to fisticuffs and strangling. A club increases the ability to inflict violence considerably, as does a knife. A simple, single shot firearm allows that violence to be inflicted at greater than arm's length. Specialized ammo raises the potential damage even further. A 100 round magazine in a rapid fire semi-automatic weapon increases the level of violence possible in a given amount of time exponentially. That's just plain and simple "physics", if you will. That's why we equip our soldiers with M-16 derivatives, machine guns, mortars, etc rather than muzzle loaders. Gotta make the force more lethal. A platoon today probably has the fire power/minute of at least a Revolutionary War Battalion.<br /><br />Ideally, the best solution would be to determine why America is a generally more violent society than say, modern day Switzerland, and apply that solution to our society. Then, people wouldn't be seeking the most effective and efficient means to act out their violent desires. In the meantime, perhaps, is it so irrational to think of limiting peoples' firepower/min as a way to reduce lethality while trying to increase civility to reduce violence in general? <br /><br />Unfortunately, the very discourse is far from civil and regularly irrational.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-39823803332129339152013-01-01T09:43:56.038-08:002013-01-01T09:43:56.038-08:00To all,
To understand the complexity of the issue ...To all,<br />To understand the complexity of the issue just look at Chiefs attack on owning a stock pile of ammo.<br />He's most negative , and i must ask why?<br />What if someone stock piles?<br />Has this caused any massacres or resulted in dead kids?<br />Is this just a personal dislike that i should care about when discussing the issue?<br />Why even raise the issue if it doesn't cause problems? It's just another layer of (u fill in the word).<br />Now look at the Fed. I think recently the SSA or IRS bought a very large supply of .357 /125 grain /high velocity plus p type ammo ( HOLLOW POINT)for their agency use. Obviously not for killing terrorists ,but obviously killing rounds.BTW remember when law enforcement carried .38 jacketed rounds?<br />Why don't we lay the up gunning of America on our police and LE policies?<br />Why isn't this a point of contention with those proposing limits on my rights?<br />I guess that you all are aware that dum dums are illegal in war , but our gov't is fitting out agents to use these outlawed rounds here in the Homeland?<br />There's way too much emotionalism in this argument.<br />I realize this and try to keep the discussion realistic.<br />The 357 rounds are real.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-80254333381182183872013-01-01T06:38:14.439-08:002013-01-01T06:38:14.439-08:00Andy: Instead we get tripe like this:
Well, we h...Andy: <i><b>Instead we get tripe like this:</b></i><br /><br />Well, we have seen abuses of the Constitution's alleged intent in the form of House and Senate "Rules" that allow, for example, a minority to block the express will of a majority.<br /><br />There is indeed a root to much of our governmental dysfunction in the Constitution, be it explicit provisions, provisions lacking or provisions that may be outdated. While I would not go so far as to say "Give Up", I would, indeed, suggest "Revisit". It may be time to move the constitution from "Sacred" to "Respected", or something like that. <br /><br />Again, IMHO, Article 5 says it all. It was originally designed to be amended as necessary to make government by the consent of the People. Prof Siedman does, indeed offer examples where such consent has been lacking, and the extra (or un) Constitutional measures arising therefrom.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-1483011319660428672013-01-01T05:27:45.631-08:002013-01-01T05:27:45.631-08:00I don't have anything to add other than to app...I don't have anything to add other than to applaud jim's continuing efforts to get the US public to face the consequences of their choices.<br /><br />Happy New Year!Plutohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04036751798841079048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-39618454198874037332013-01-01T05:09:26.124-08:002013-01-01T05:09:26.124-08:00Al,
I'd be fine with changing the 2nd amendme...Al,<br /><br />I'd be fine with changing the 2nd amendment. Hardly anyone wants to do that though probably because they understand what an uphill climb it would be be.<br /><br />Instead we get tripe like this:<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-19980839809485654042013-01-01T02:47:11.785-08:002013-01-01T02:47:11.785-08:00Andy-
The 2nd Amendment was written over 200 year...Andy-<br /><br />The 2nd Amendment was written over 200 years ago, by folks in a time when slavery was considered proper. Not equating the two, but suggesting that times do change, as does the issues a given wording might address. Thus, before there was a 2nd Amendment, there was Article 5, which tends to say that the authors of the Constitution knew that times could change and/or their wording may become less appropriate.<br /><br />I'm not saying trash the 2nd Amendment, but rather that it is not the "Inspired Word of The deity, Inscribed in Immutably Stone". Funny thing about many of those who equate the Constitution to a certain "Book", regularly and routinely create new "Translations" of that "Book" into English using inaccurate translation to promote a sectarian agenda. jim's railing against "hypocrisy" could find a good target here.<br /><br />Also lost is that the authors of the Constitution did not intend to govern us from their graves, but rather wrote a document, consented to by their contemporaries that only exists by the consent of subsequent Americans. To be able to keep that consent over the generations, without revolution, they included Article 5.<br /><br />The US was birthed in violence, in a major part reacting to the tyrannical excesses of the "Divine Right of Kings". We have simply replaced that with the tyrannical excesses of the "Divine Right of Moneyed Interest Groups". I am gobsmacked that the Koch Brothers are able to invest millions to sway elections in a jurisdiction in which they have no legal constituent standing. Rather than legally cast their two votes just where they live, they extra-legally buy tens of thousands of them wherever they please. If that isn't a form of an excess of tyranny, I don't know what is.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.com