Nevada election fraud.... already !! [Archive]

UnderseaLcpl

10-26-10, 01:10 PM

This is the fourth time in this election I've heard of election fraud on the part of the Democratic party. We've got fraudulent absentee ballots, dead voters, students with Dem-only ballots, and now this. And that's just in this election.

Now, we all suffer from the effects of personal bias from time to time. I certainly have, right here on this forum, and I have been proven wrong on several issues by reason and sheer volume of consensus. Additionally, we occassionally refuse to acknowledge that we have been proven wrong and/or stretch the facts or only see what we want to see. However, it seems to me that it would take a singularly magnificent type of narcissistic, arrogant, ignorant, selfish........person, if one could indeed be called that, to knowingly defraud a popular vote when one's platrform is popular appeal. Certainly, if one was deserving of the intelligence they accord themselves, they could win the argument and the vote through reason, or even through clever pandering, right?

Furthermore, the arguments and stances of the Democratic incumbents and the President himself seem more in line with keeping their party in power than accomplishing anything or establishing a plan.

Personally, the conduct of the Democratic party in this century is disgusting to me, to say nothing of the last century. I think what they're really saying through their actions is that they don't care about what anyone thinks, including their primary demographic, which they assume is compreised of idiots, and which is coincidentally primarily comprised of the lowest income brackets.

In most political discussions, I have given the left the benefit of the doubt. I usually assume that they just don't know what they don't know, and they push their agendas because they lack the education, or the background, or the modesty to understand that there is no way to control the desires and destinies of hundreds of millions of different people through some kind of manifest national will when we rely upon freedom of trade and individuality for prosperity. Other times, I assume that they are motivated by self-interest, without a care for what is going on in the world at large or, in the case of Western nations, what is essential to economic supremacy.

What I am seeing now, however, is the desperate plight of rats struggling to flee a sinking ship (Obama) whilst trying to ensure their own comfortable survival. They promised prosperity and change, and only delivered lip-service and vast expense accounts. I'm beginning to wonder if I was too lenient in my judgement of Democrats. I'm beginning to wonder if they are the party of brainwashed layabouts, filchers, and liars my dad always said they were. The idea is difficult for me to grasp. I simply can't comprehend the idea of a person who is so....for lack of a better word... evil. How does a person even end up like that? Moreso, how does a person who purports the embrace of democratic ideals wind up rigging votes?

They can't be that bad, can they?

mookiemookie

10-26-10, 01:17 PM

Hanging chads are one thing. Ballots already filled out is quite another. :yep:

Dont think I have heard of this before. But go ahead and prove me wrong please.

It happened in Louisiana in the 04 Presidential election:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9F8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=voting+machine+%22already+filled+out%22&source=bl&ots=r7JhRI9OOB&sig=plIOqT0H6knHBX5J72MqMOP-jvw&hl=en&ei=sBrHTIvTNsHJnAf-mph9&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=voting%20machine%20%22already%20filled%20out%22&f=false

mookiemookie

10-26-10, 01:46 PM

They can't be that bad, can they?

I'll take them over the thugs and pigs from the Teabaggers who tackled and stomped on the head of a Rand Paul protester:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txU55iFG9UA&feature=player_embedded

AngusJS

10-26-10, 01:53 PM

In most political discussions, I have given the left the benefit of the doubt. I usually assume that they just don't know what they don't knowHow charitable of you.

They can't be that bad, can they?Nope, they actually are that bad. Just like you, they have seen the Light which the Received Truth of Libertarianism brings, but they have consciously and maliciously closed their hearts to it. So really, nothing is beneath them.

:roll:

tater

10-26-10, 01:59 PM

I'll take them over the thugs and pigs from the Teabaggers who tackled and stomped on the head of a Rand Paul protester:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txU55iFG9UA&feature=player_embedded

While they deserve to be charged with assault, "stomped" is pretty hyperbolic. I routinely "stomp" my 4 YO with about as much force. He giggles. Looks more like he held her down with his foot.

Again, still assault, they shouldn't touch her at all (hasn't stopped union thugs in the past—I'll assume you are equally enraged with them). "Stomping" a head would result in a consult with a neurosurgeon, however.

SteamWake

10-26-10, 02:15 PM

I'll take them over the thugs and pigs from the Teabaggers who tackled and stomped on the head of a Rand Paul protester:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txU55iFG9UA&feature=player_embedded

Yea I knew this would come up.

All I can say is if I saw someone wearing garb advertising moveon.org in some sort of costume forcing their way through a crowd with a mysterious package approaching a candidate.... The video doesent cover that part. But who needs all the facts.

No we dont need pepole stepping on heads but there is always one in any crowd you know. I noticed someone waving him off.. must have been a democrat plant :D

But meh.. what does this have to do with the topic anyhow? Diversion maybe?

Wolfehunter

10-26-10, 02:16 PM

Happens here too. So don't feel bad guys.. If they can cheat they will and they do.. The real question is how many real people really vote? How does one determine a honest vote verses a fake?... :hmmm: Whole thing is a scam... :nope:

August

10-26-10, 02:18 PM

Whole thing is a scam... :nope:

No, the whole thing is a vital part of representative government. That some people try to turn it into a scam is something to constantly be on guard against but that's still better than the alternatives.

Takeda Shingen

10-26-10, 02:21 PM

No, the whole thing is a vital part of representative government. That some people try to turn it into a scam is something to constantly be on guard against but that's still better than the alternatives.

That's all certainly true. I know that I levy the charge that the current climate renders the process ineffective, and I do not retract that claim, but it certainly is preferable to tyranny.

Bubblehead1980

10-26-10, 02:31 PM

Yep, Dems know they cant win so they cheat.They know the jig is up..

UnderseaLcpl

10-26-10, 02:44 PM

I'll take them over the thugs and pigs from the Teabaggers who tackled and stomped on the head of a Rand Paul protester:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txU55iFG9UA&feature=player_embedded

I give them the benefit of the doubt as well. I'll be the first to admit that the Tea Party gets a bit rambunctious at times, which accounts for the accusations of extremism that surface during just about every major rally. And yes, some of them are just as stupid as the Democrats who consistently fail to vote or take any kind of political action whatsoever.

You have to understand that these people really think that the government and the left wing are out to get them and destroy the idea of America and a Constitutional Government. As such, some see these protestors as being conscientious agents with the sole purpose of undermining ideals they hold dear, to include their interpretation of the Constitution. They honestly feel threatened, and when people feel threatened, especially against a single enemy (exponentially so when they are united by a cause), they have a tendency to get violent and irrational.

That said, you'll notice that in the video a man immediately steps in to stop the (let's be fair) guy who steps on the woman's left shoulder-bade. What I saw was passion quickly checked by reason. No charges were pressed, so I assume there must have been some kind of reconciliation. And this is in the case of an infiltrator who sought to mock Rand Paul.

You see no such thing from the Democrats, however, as case after case of voter fraud goes unchecked or denied, and more importantly, uninvestigated. Paul came out with a statement denouncing the actions of the "head-stomper" rather quickly, but we're still mired in debate over absentee ballots and that student-voting thing.

As I have said before, I can't really compete with you upon the finer points of economics, Mark. You deal with finance as a profession, and I deal with it only as a hobby and occassionally as a means of making money. In truth, I probably have less experience with my 401k than you do with finances on a daily basis, so I yield the argument of my reasoning to yours for the most part. However, I have to say, if your economic expertise was sufficient, why are you not a private investor? If your knowledge is so great, why are you not making your living through investment? I'm not saying that to be a jerk, I just wonder. To me it seems that you are an investing puppet for a corporation that gives you guidelines on investment, yes?

I'm going to hate myself for asking this, and I hope it doesn't ruin our friendship, but is it possible you've been taken for a ride by special interests who use the exact same altruistic arguments that dupe so many Democrats? Is it possible that in your rejection of corporate finance that you have inadvertently given power to the exact same entity that enables fraudulent orporate transactions, investments, and savings? I mean, you do your job every day, right? And besides that, you argue for government oversight of finance, which you surely must realize is always captured by people with the most interest in regulating finance, no!?

mookiemookie

10-26-10, 03:10 PM

While they deserve to be charged with assault, "stomped" is pretty hyperbolic. I routinely "stomp" my 4 YO with about as much force. He giggles. Looks more like he held her down with his foot.

I think there's a bit of difference between a father playing with a 4 year old and a barbarian physically assaulting someone who has a different political opinion than themselves.

Yea I knew this would come up.

All I can say is if I saw someone wearing garb advertising moveon.org in some sort of costume forcing their way through a crowd with a mysterious package approaching a candidate.... The video doesent cover that part. But who needs all the facts.

Blame the victim eh? I guess "Tacking and stomping on someone's head" seems to you like a reasonable action to take at a political rally. That's kind of scary.

The fact that anyone even attempts to excuse this or explain it away is disgusting. Physical assault has no place in a civilized political process and you're an idiot if you think it's an acceptable course of action to take, no matter what the circumstances are. There is no "out of context" or "we don't know all the facts" about a mob assaulting someone. No matter what, it's still a mob assaulting someone. Screw you if you think that's ever right or called for.

Undersea, will post a reply later. But until then - I'm not a Dem. They're too spineless for me.

Ducimus

10-26-10, 03:22 PM

God you guys are hilarious.

tater

10-26-10, 03:30 PM

I think there's a bit of difference between a father playing with a 4 year old and a barbarian physically assaulting someone who has a different political opinion than themselves.

Any sort of physical intimidation is wrong, I said they should be charged with assault. How much more wrong can I say it should be? It's wrong at a polling place, too, though the Obama administration thinks it's just fine as long as the perps are on his side (the dropped Black Panther case).

Again, watch the vid. He doesn't "stomp" her. Sorry, he just doesn't. The use of a foot does not make it a "stomp." The word means to tread heavily. You cannot stomp on someone without injuring them. On the head, a stomp would result in severe injury. She didn't sustain injury or make a charge. So we're talking about an interaction that violated her personal space,physically (assault) that did no more damage than me playing with my kid (zero physical harm is zero physical harm).

"Stomp" is hyperbole.

mookiemookie

10-26-10, 03:46 PM

Any sort of physical intimidation is wrong, I said they should be charged with assault. How much more wrong can I say it should be? It's wrong at a polling place, too, though the Obama administration thinks it's just fine as long as the perps are on his side (the dropped Black Panther case).

Again, watch the vid. He doesn't "stomp" her. Sorry, he just doesn't. The use of a foot does not make it a "stomp." The word means to tread heavily. You cannot stomp on someone without injuring them. On the head, a stomp would result in severe injury. She didn't sustain injury or make a charge. So we're talking about an interaction that violated her personal space,physically (assault) that did no more damage than me playing with my kid (zero physical harm is zero physical harm).

"Stomp" is hyperbole.

Splitting hairs.

gimpy117

10-26-10, 03:49 PM

Tribesman

10-26-10, 04:45 PM

But what else have we come to expect from teabaggers
Some form of oral sex?

Wolfehunter

10-26-10, 04:59 PM

No, the whole thing is a vital part of representative government. That some people try to turn it into a scam is something to constantly be on guard against but that's still better than the alternatives.
lol do you think the government gives a rats behind what you want or care about... ok.. sure... :har: Its a scam... I'll take my chances for the alternatives... :03:

tater

10-26-10, 05:04 PM

Lets face it, they tackled her, then held her down while somebody kicked her shoulder blade/ head area. I'm sure they guy used some force. It's assault. It's also violating her civil rights to protest.

But what else have we come to expect from teabaggers :doh:

Are there fewer assaults as part of these "tea party" groups than union groups (imagine an opposition person showing up at a union rally. Imagine.) or democratic groups? More?

Myself, I cannot say one way or another about the tea party, but then again I require data to make a statement like yours above. So are you intentionally painting a picture of the group with zero data, or are you merely a credulous consumer of moveon/huffpo/dailykos?

gimpy117

10-26-10, 05:06 PM

you mean the same groups who brought guns to other rallies?

Tribesman

10-26-10, 05:07 PM

There are far few assaults as part of these "tea party" groups than union groups
Does that make them much nicer?
To me it just makes them equal scum

tater

10-26-10, 05:08 PM

you mean the same groups who brought guns to other rallies?

I have friends that carry (concealed carry permit) everywhere they go. None has discharged a weapon other than at the range in decades.

What's your point?

The guy in question open-carried a rifle. That is entirely legal. Open carry here in NM, for example is legal with any firearm. Are you suggesting that legally holding a weapon is tantamount to assault?

tater

10-26-10, 05:09 PM

Does that make them much nicer?
To me it just makes them equal scum

No, assault is assault. My guess is that there are FAR more assaults by union people. Throw all of 'em (people who actually engage in assault) in jail i say.

Bilge_Rat

10-26-10, 05:10 PM

Yep, Dems know they cant win so they cheat.They know the jig is up..

Don't kid yourself, both sides cheat. The Republicans are as bad.

gimpy117

10-26-10, 05:12 PM

I have friends that carry (concealed carry permit) everywhere they go. None has discharged a weapon other than at the range in decades.

What's your point?

The guy in question open-carried a rifle. That is entirely legal. Open carry here in NM, for example is legal with any firearm. Are you suggesting that legally holding a weapon is tantamount to assault?

Just because "open carry is legal" doesn't mean that bringing a gun to a political rally is a rational thing to do. In my mind, once you start toting weapons in a "rally" it becomes a mob. Politics is not war, it has no need for guns and fighting.

August

10-26-10, 05:15 PM

lol do you think the government gives a rats behind what you want or care about... ok.. sure... :har: Its a scam... I'll take my chances for the alternatives... :03:

Right, you prefer to take your chances with the alternatives. So when are you leaving? I hear North Korea is just lovely this time of year. :dead:

tater

10-26-10, 05:27 PM

thats different than bringing an assault rifle around. Just because "open carry is legal" doesn't mean that bringing a gun to a political rally is a rational thing to do. In my mind, once you start toting weapons in a "rally" it becomes a mob. Politics is not war, it has no need for guns and fighting.

It was a demonstration (bringing the rifle). If it is legal to carry it is legal to carry. Period. I'd not carry one to a rally, myself, but that doesn't mean it is not allowed. Had he been prevented against his legal rights, then the government would have been guilty of a civil rights violation. That was the point I imagine.

Looking like an assault rifle doesn't make it one, BTW. No full-auto, not an assault rifle. It was an AR-15 or something. No different than any other semi-auto rifle.

Tribesman

10-26-10, 05:28 PM

No, assault is assault
Good.

tater

10-26-10, 05:30 PM

Good.

Hey, I made a point of saying that in my first post. That they should be charged for touching her (assuming she pressed charges, which she apparently did not). They'd only be required to press charges if she was actually injured I think (I think in that case she has no say in pressing charges).

AngusJS

10-26-10, 05:36 PM

While they deserve to be charged with assault, "stomped" is pretty hyperbolic. I routinely "stomp" my 4 YO with about as much force. He giggles. Looks more like he held her down with his foot.If "stomped" is hyperbole, then "held her down with his foot" is deliberate understatement. Look at it the video again - he starts by holding her down, then he adds significantly more pressure in a sort of "stomping" motion (the only difference I can see with whatever definition you wish to use for "stomp" being that the foot was already in contact with her body).

And she has told Moveon.org that she got a concussion and a sprained arm. Take that for what it's worth.

The guy in question open-carried a rifle. That is entirely legal. Open carry here in NM, for example is legal with any firearm. Are you suggesting that legally holding a weapon is tantamount to assault?You really can't see why taking weapons to a political rally is a spectacularly bad idea, regardless of whatever foolish laws there are?

Throw all of 'em (people who actually engage in assault) in jail i say.Agreed.

Platapus

10-26-10, 05:36 PM

That's why I only use paper ballots. And I am an Election Officer!!

There are some things that benefit from technology and there are others that don't. Counting votes is one of them, in my opinion.

I think they need to get a way from the electronic voting machines. :yep:

August

10-26-10, 05:40 PM

Are there fewer assaults as part of these "tea party" groups than union groups (imagine an opposition person showing up at a union rally. Imagine.) or democratic groups? More?

Good point. While I in no way excuse this incident, union members have long been known for their violent tendancies. Just ask anyone who has ever dared to cross their picket lines. Organized thuggery pure and simple.

Myself, I cannot say one way or another about the tea party, but then again I require data to make a statement like yours above. So are you intentionally painting a picture of the group with zero data, or are you merely a credulous consumer of moveon/huffpo/dailykos?

This is the Tea Parties biggest weakness. Since it emerged as an unorganized, grass roots response to government mismanagement it's rather easy for the Democrats to cherry pick fringe individuals and cast them as the movements mainstream.

tater

10-26-10, 05:48 PM

If "stomped" is hyperbole, then "held her down with his foot" is deliberate understatement. Look at it the video again - he starts by holding her down, then he adds significantly more pressure in a sort of "stomping" motion (the only difference I can see with whatever definition you wish to use for "stomp" being that the foot was already in contact with her body).

And she has told Moveon.org that she got a concussion and a sprained arm. Take that for what it's worth.

Again, she should press charges for assault. It does not look terribly forceful to me, but "stomped" certainly has the connotation of what the droogs did to the old-man in the alley in Clockwork Orange. If I ever find myself needing to "stomp" someone on the head, they'll likely die of the trauma (say if I caught some guy molesting a kid).

You really can't see why taking weapons to a political rally is a spectacularly bad idea, regardless of whatever foolish laws there are?

The law is not foolish, it's the 2d Amendment. That said, I said I'd not do it myself, because the cops frequently ignore the law. You can open carry legally in NM, but doing so in many places is asking to get hassled in spite of your legal rights.

If your GOAL is to provoke an illegal police response, then it's entirely rational.

Dunno their motives. I basically personally agree, which is why I'd not take my AR-15 to a rally. Heck, I don't even take MYSELF to a rally ;)

AngusJS

10-26-10, 05:59 PM

it's the 2d Amendment.Like I said, a foolish law. :O:

But obviously, how the 2nd amendment is applied is determined by state laws.

gimpy117

10-26-10, 06:04 PM

It was a demonstration (bringing the rifle). If it is legal to carry it is legal to carry. Period. I'd not carry one to a rally, myself, but that doesn't mean it is not allowed. Had he been prevented against his legal rights, then the government would have been guilty of a civil rights violation. That was the point I imagine.

Looking like an assault rifle doesn't make it one, BTW. No full-auto, not an assault rifle. It was an AR-15 or something. No different than any other semi-auto rifle.

Well im glad you would not carry a gun. But I have to debate your whole Assault rifle thing. An Ar-15, to the best of my knowledge fires the same round as an m-16 or M-4 and can still accept a 30 round clip. It's not really your every day bolt-action/ semi varmint gun.

also, there are many things that are legal, you can wear a tie dye shirt to a funeral for instance, but it does not mean it is a good idea.

tater

10-26-10, 06:07 PM

Not a foolish law at all. It was meant as the ultimate check vs a tyrannical government. At the time of it's inception, citizens could own (and did own) all types of "military" hardware. The USN was in fact private vessels for the most part (not really the "USN" at that point, just privateers). Armed citizens were FAR more of a threat then than now (both to the government, and to the citizens at large). The Founders knew what they were doing.

An entirely unarmed citizenry has a name. They are called "subjects."

tater

10-26-10, 06:10 PM

Well im glad you would not carry a gun. But I have to debate your whole Assault rifle thing. An Ar-15, to the best of my knowledge fires the same round as an m-16 or M-4 and can still accept a 30 round clip. It's not really your every day bolt-action/ semi varmint gun.

also, there are many things that are legal, you can wear a tie dye shirt to a funeral for instance, but it does not mean it is a good idea.

Assault rifles are used by the military to assault. All such weapons have a full-auto or burst fire option. An AR-15 is not an M-16, M-4, etc, for that reason. You can ignorantly argue this as much as you like, but the definition of assault rifle is not what it is chambered for, it is a set of features that must exist, one of which is automatic fire.

mookiemookie

10-26-10, 06:20 PM

Assault rifles are used by the military to assault. All such weapons have a full-auto or burst fire option. An AR-15 is not an M-16, M-4, etc, for that reason. You can ignorantly argue this as much as you like, but the definition of assault rifle is not what it is chambered for, it is a set of features that must exist, one of which is automatic fire.

Again, splitting hairs.

tater

10-26-10, 06:33 PM

Again, splitting hairs.

Of course I am.

Assault Rifle has a very particular meaning. It is used in conversations like this to portray someone a certain way— though I'd frankly not care if it was a real M-4 as long as he had his class 3 (and open carry allowed that wherever he was). Only someone ignorant of weapons, or someone trying to intentionally mislead would confuse the two. Which is it? (note the press does this all the time, presumably intentionally)

We'd all jump on someone for calling a pig boat a "fleet type." They both carry the same diameter torpedoes, don't they? They're the same! Post on an abstract art forum if you don't want other posters to jump on errors in military terminology—this is a war simulator forum, get used to it. :)

BTW, if someone posted about financial stuff and mis-attributed some security to the wrong type, would you chime in and "split hairs" when the difference was in fact quite huge?

SteamWake

10-26-10, 07:49 PM

What in the hell was this thread about again? :doh:

mookiemookie

10-26-10, 07:54 PM

Of course I am.

Assault Rifle has a very particular meaning. It is used in conversations like this to portray someone a certain way— though I'd frankly not care if it was a real M-4 as long as he had his class 3 (and open carry allowed that wherever he was). Only someone ignorant of weapons, or someone trying to intentionally mislead would confuse the two. Which is it? (note the press does this all the time, presumably intentionally)

We'd all jump on someone for calling a pig boat a "fleet type." They both carry the same diameter torpedoes, don't they? They're the same! Post on an abstract art forum if you don't want other posters to jump on errors in military terminology—this is a war simulator forum, get used to it. :)

BTW, if someone posted about financial stuff and mis-attributed some security to the wrong type, would you chime in and "split hairs" when the difference was in fact quite huge?

Hah! Guilty as charged. ;) But I think the main point still stands. A person thought that bringing a rifle, assault or otherwise, to a political rally was a good idea. Arguing the semantics of it is losing sight of the big picture - just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

krashkart

10-26-10, 08:07 PM

What in the hell was this thread about again? :doh:

Heh. It's gone OT just a tad, yeah? :haha:

So, the officials claim that the touchscreens are very sensitive, which could lead to an accidental ticking of the wrong checkbox. That doesn't inspire much faith, in fact maybe they should go back to using paper ballots instead of these unproven technological wonders. (we don't have enough computerization already?) :O:

FIREWALL

10-26-10, 08:17 PM

Hanging chads.......

It's amazeing people are old enough to vote BUT, to STOOPID to poke a clean hole or, mark in the square\circle.:roll:

yubba

10-26-10, 08:18 PM

So we got election fraud, and what a assault rifle is, which doesn't exist, only in terminalogy to demonize perticualure weapons, so if you use the same weapon to hunt with would they call it a hunting rifle? I believe if a canidate or politial party gets caught up in voter fraud they should forfit the race, then we won't have this crap going on.

UnderseaLcpl

10-26-10, 08:20 PM

What in the hell was this thread about again? :doh:
It was about boobs. Tell us more about those.:D

razark

10-26-10, 08:35 PM

It was about boobs. Tell us more about those.:D
Boobs?

Every two, four, or six years, they run for election.

yubba

10-26-10, 08:40 PM

boobs would be nice

Bubblehead1980

10-26-10, 08:41 PM

Don't kid yourself, both sides cheat. The Republicans are as bad.

Well I think about 1960 election, how they stole the election for Kennedy.How they attempted to steal 2000.I honestly am not sure about 2008 .I believe Obama won but no doubt some major fraud.

I could be wrong and not naive so know someone prob cheats for Republicans but not on the level or as organized as the Dems.

FIREWALL

10-26-10, 08:53 PM

Boobs?

Every two, four, or six years, they run for election.

:up::up::up::haha: In Nevada it's a crap shoot anyways.

The Third Man

10-26-10, 09:19 PM

Not only do liberal /progressives want us a banana republic fiscally and socially they want it electorally. Blue fingers will be next.

tater

10-26-10, 09:25 PM

I said I'd not personally do it cause I'd not want to be hassled (or SHOT by the cops). I also said that if he was within his rights in that state to carry, then he did nothing at all wrong. Didn't seem to cause a riot, either, so basically, complaining about it seems like a non-starter, since he didn't do anything illegal, and it resulted in no negative effects.

mookiemookie

10-26-10, 09:58 PM

As I have said before, I can't really compete with you upon the finer points of economics, Mark. You deal with finance as a profession, and I deal with it only as a hobby and occassionally as a means of making money. In truth, I probably have less experience with my 401k than you do with finances on a daily basis, so I yield the argument of my reasoning to yours for the most part. However, I have to say, if your economic expertise was sufficient, why are you not a private investor? If your knowledge is so great, why are you not making your living through investment? I'm not saying that to be a jerk, I just wonder. To me it seems that you are an investing puppet for a corporation that gives you guidelines on investment, yes?

No, not exactly. We are a small bond firm. (around 100 employees) We are a broker for institutional clients such as banks, credit unions and the like. I can barely spell the word "stock". :ping:

My job description has strayed a lot from what I was hired to do. My main responsibilities include financial reporting (i.e. statements and holding reports and portfolio analytics). I also do a lot of our marketing and public event sort of deals. I write a lot of our research, as well as do presentations to industry groups as required. My interest in economics has stemmed from that sort of thing. I also had the good fortune of having worked with a PhD in Economics for the first few years of my career who was a sort of mentor/guru to me.

I believe in the role our firm plays in the market. We do a lot of municipal underwriting. Without an underwriting, that school doesn't get built, or that road doesn't get repaired, that sort of thing. Municipalities need access to the capital markets, and that's what we provide. We also deal a lot in SBA loans. We buy them from banks. If a bank knows that they have a willing buyer standing ready to take on their SBA loans in exchange for cash, they're more likely to make said loans. We provide liquidity for that market, which helps small business borrowers.

As far as being a private investor - first off I don't have the capital to invest. Second off, the deck is stacked against individual investors in the stock market. It's a sucker's game. The Daily Show (forgive the source, but Lord knows they have it pegged here...actually, you know what, don't forgive the soruce. TDS is the best damn news show on TV) on "high frequency trading": http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/10/cash-cow-high-frequency-trading/

I'm going to hate myself for asking this, and I hope it doesn't ruin our friendship, but is it possible you've been taken for a ride by special interests who use the exact same altruistic arguments that dupe so many Democrats? Is it possible that in your rejection of corporate finance that you have inadvertently given power to the exact same entity that enables fraudulent orporate transactions, investments, and savings? I mean, you do your job every day, right? And besides that, you argue for government oversight of finance, which you surely must realize is always captured by people with the most interest in regulating finance, no!?

Part 2 later. Again, not a Democrat. :03:

Enigma

10-26-10, 10:08 PM

Ahhh. Good to stop by on occasion and check in with my old favorites. I knew I'd find the usual suspects attempting to justify an assault on a woman for her political views. As long as shes a liberal that is. Working for MoveOn. That bastion of violence and stockpile-rs of guns.

See you all next week! :salute:

AngusJS

10-27-10, 12:18 AM

Not a foolish law at all. It was meant as the ultimate check vs a tyrannical government.And until private citizens can start fielding armored divisions, it will never serve that purpose again.

An entirely unarmed citizenry has a name. They are called "subjects."Did you get that off an NRA bumper sticker?
But anyway, I feel sorry for all those Europeans, being treated as subjects rather than citizens. I mean, they own far fewer guns than we do per capita, so obviously they're being crushed under the jackboots of their oppressive governments, right? :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

Aramike

10-27-10, 12:21 AM

And until private citizens can start fielding armored divisions, it will never serve that purpose again.You discount the fact that an all-volunteer military would possibly shrink from fighting its own countrymen.

Disarm said countrymen, there is nothing to fight.

AngusJS

10-27-10, 12:45 AM

You discount the fact that an all-volunteer military would possibly shrink from fighting its own countrymen.

Disarm said countrymen, there is nothing to fight.I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that our military would shrink from fighting, oppressing, or doing anything else to their fellow Americans, regardless of whether we're armed or not.

But conceding for sake of argument that just such a situation were to arise where they are ordered to attack us, being unarmed might very well play to their sympathy and mercy - while being armed will mean we're a threat that must be neutralized, however weak it may be.

Anyway, given the choice between having a pathetic deterrent against the government which would be swept aside in an instant, and a decrease in gun deaths, I know which one I'd go for.

Aramike

10-27-10, 03:42 AM

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that our military would shrink from fighting, oppressing, or doing anything else to their fellow Americans, regardless of whether we're armed or not.

But conceding for sake of argument that just such a situation were to arise where they are ordered to attack us, being unarmed might very well play to their sympathy and mercy - while being armed will mean we're a threat that must be neutralized, however weak it may be.

Anyway, given the choice between having a pathetic deterrent against the government which would be swept aside in an instant, and a decrease in gun deaths, I know which one I'd go for.Why would they shrink or give mercy? It's not as though they would have to kill us - it would be perfectly feesible to restrain the private citizens and lock them up (heck, they could do so on the premise that such a course of action could surely be temporary and therefore not violate any sense of morality).

Unless of course, those citizens had deadly weapons and would therefore force the issue, whereby I think our soldiers would shrink from firing. I happen to remember a guy in Tiananmen Square without weapons stopping an entire column of tanks. Of course, this guy was merely dragged away. Now if he had a gun, they would have had to shoot. Certainly the massacre that preceded this shows that the Chinese military and police were indoctrinated towards following all orders, but the same doesn't apply to the US military.

Even so, perhaps they would shoot a few armed civilians. But what about thousands of armed civilians?

The 2nd Amendment suggests in its text that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a FREE state - it says nothing about the usage of weapons in conflict with the state but rather it implies that such weapons should not be prohibited, leading to the idea that the possession of such weapons would serve to deter and usurpation of federal power. (In fact, I forget who it was, but it was argued that the amendment was unnecessary because the federal government would never be able to raise and army that could adequately fight a militia, which clearly implies that, should the situation be reversed as it is now, perhaps the right is necessary.)

Moreover, guns serve as the ultimate equalizer. Like it or not, criminals are going to use guns. Banning them only takes the guns away from law-abiding citizens who would not use the guns for criminal purposes. Great hypothetical: you're out of town on business. Your pregnant wife hears someone smashing the door in. They are armed with knives and are larger and stronger than she is. However she's trained on how to use a firearm. Who wins?

What you're suggesting is that she should be unarmed and at the mercy and whim of those who would smash your door down. Perhaps they just want money and the TV. Or maybe they want to rape and kill her. I'd rather have her armed than unarmed.

Now you may see it differently. Perhaps you'd want your wife to just shut up and give into their demands and hope they go away peacefully with only some loss to property. That is your right, and I don't begrudge you that. However, I wouldn't want the same for my wife, I'd want her to have a fighting chance in case of the latter. That is currently MY right. What you're advocating is eliminating MY right to make a decision because you feel your decision is best.

Yes, guns are dangerous. Yes, they can be used as a tool for evil. But mankind has been able to figure out all sorts of ways to be evil to one another well before the advent of firearms. The difference is that guns allow a well-trained victim to equalize their chances against a stronger criminal.

So, what makes you think that taking guns out of law-abiding citizens' hands would decrease gun deaths? Did it work in Chicago? Here's one of my favorite, Irony-of-the-Year articles: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/chicago-gun-ban-axed-afte_n_627773.html

Note: 29 shot, guns illegal.

tater

10-27-10, 08:18 AM

Don't like the 2d Amendment? Repeal it. There is a process to modify the COnstitution, until then, it's a specifically enumerated right and abridging it is just as unamerican as censorship.

Fish

10-27-10, 08:31 AM

Get rid of the electronic machines.

We (the Netherlands) did. Back to the red pencil.

tater

10-27-10, 08:37 AM

We have the worst of both worlds. A paper ballot fed into an electronic reader. All the waste of time of paper, all the possible failures of electronics.

SteamWake

10-27-10, 08:38 AM

We have the worst of both worlds. A paper ballot fed into an electronic reader. All the waste of time of paper, all the possible failures of electronics.

Welcome to Florida :salute:

Heres some news (actually on the topic) that doesent supprise me at all.

Now there's absolutely no independently verified evidence of chicanery with the voting machines (yet), but it is worth noting that the voting machine technicians in Clark County are members of the Service Employees International Union. The SEIU spent $63 million in elections in 2008 and is planning on spending $44 million more this election cycle -- nearly all of that on Democrats

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Voting-machines-in-Clark-County-Nevada-automatically-checking-Harry-Reids-name-Voting-machine-technicians-are-members-of-SEIU-105815608.html

AngusJS

10-27-10, 09:53 AM

Why would they shrink or give mercy? It's not as though they would have to kill usSorry, I thought they were attacking us or brutalizing us in this inapplicable bizzarro world hypothetical.

Even so, perhaps they would shoot a few armed civilians. But what about thousands of armed civilians?Call in an airstrike? If the civilians bring the heat and are a threat, the military would just escalate WAY past the point where any of us could do anything against it - unless you happen to have an operational S-75 just sitting around.

In fact, I think we will not have a credible deterrent against our government until we have our own SSBNs, and thus can maintain the ability to conduct a retaliatory second strike.

The 2nd Amendment suggests in its text that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a FREE state - it says nothing about the usage of weapons in conflict with the state but rather it implies that such weapons should not be prohibited, leading to the idea that the possession of such weapons would serve to deter and usurpation of federal power.Millions of gun owners going a million different directions do not a "well-regulated militia" make, so what's the point? Possessing firearms can't deter federal power, so what's the point? Is it possible the Founders might have been wrong about this issue? Is it possible that you can't necessarily apply an idea that might have made sense in the USA of 1787, to the USA of 2010?

Moreover, guns serve as the ultimate equalizer. Like it or not, criminals are going to use guns. Banning them only takes the guns away from law-abiding citizens who would not use the guns for criminal purposes. Great hypothetical: you're out of town on business. Your pregnant wife hears someone smashing the door in.:zzz:

Great hypothetical - you're sitting at work one day when one of your former coworkers snaps and walks in with a shotgun. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO? [in Dennis Hopper voice]

Why, get shot, of course. Unless everyone is packing, in preparation of just such an incident - which just increases the chance of it happening again.

Is that what you want? Do you really want every bar-room scuffle, every road rage incident to have the potential to escalate into a gunfight?

That is currently MY right. What you're advocating is eliminating MY right to make a decision because you feel your decision is best. And your ability to exercise your right is eliminating my right to not have to live in the Wild West.

So, what makes you think that taking guns out of law-abiding citizens' hands would decrease gun deaths? Did it work in Chicago? Here's one of my favorite, Irony-of-the-Year articles: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/chicago-gun-ban-axed-afte_n_627773.html

Note: 29 shot, guns illegal.:zzz:

Banning them in a city located in a state where they are legal will obviously have no effect. A decades-long, nationwide process would be necessary to drain the sea of guns we're swimming in now.

AngusJS

10-27-10, 09:59 AM

it's a specifically enumerated right and abridging it is just as unamerican as censorship.Do you support my right to own and operate a shoulder-launched SAM?

Or can the sacred right to bear arms be restricted?

tater

10-27-10, 10:12 AM

Do you support my right to own and operate a shoulder-launched SAM?

Or can the sacred right to bear arms be restricted?

No, in principle no restrictions at all. "Infringed" is a pretty low standard of allowable law. A waiting period is probably infringement. That said, the courts have allowed such restrictions (Class III stuff) so until changed it is "settled law" at this point. Again, at the time it was written, private citizens had ALL the weapons of a modern (at the time) army, including artillery.

Presumably "bearing arms" meant what would now be more accurately described as "small arms" since at the time men did not "bear" artillery (even if the 2d was understood broadly to include that at the time).

I think you could make a reasonable argument that small arms are what cannot be infringed, and other arms could in fact be infringed. I'd be fine with no restrictions at all on small arms (yes, even class III stuff), and restrictions only on larger weapons, SAMs, all that crap. That's not an unreasonable reading of the 2d. Banning handguns (or even "infringing" on owning them), OTOH, it entirely unreasonable without a repeal of the 2d.

SteamWake

10-27-10, 10:43 AM

Welcome to Florida :salute:

Heres some news (actually on the topic) that doesent supprise me at all.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Voting-machines-in-Clark-County-Nevada-automatically-checking-Harry-Reids-name-Voting-machine-technicians-are-members-of-SEIU-105815608.html

How we got off on to the 2nd amendment I'll never know... well actually I do but...

tater

10-27-10, 10:55 AM

We're on the 2d because someone said that legally having a firearm at a rally was tantamount to assault. That was the point, right, else why bring it up?

The "assault rifle" nonsense was added presumably to make the perceived threat seem worse (even though nothing happened, and little more was exchanged with the "perp" than pats on the back).

On-topic, the other thread about ID requirements (and the typically wrong 9th circuit ruling yesterday) is spot on. Lack of ID laws is entirely the result of one party favoring fraud.

Both parties are nothing if not pragmatic. If the Republicans thought they were the beneficiaries of fraud, they'd be all for it I imagine. The fact that the dems are for it means that their internal studies (and you know both parties have a darn good idea how much real fraud there is) show a significant advantage for the dems, else they'd not have "no IDs" as part of almost every state platform.

August

10-27-10, 11:07 AM

Great hypothetical - you're sitting at work one day when one of your former coworkers snaps and walks in with a shotgun. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO? [in Dennis Hopper voice]

(in a Dennis Hooper voice) Well duh, pull out your own gun and shoot him!

Banning gun ownership will not prevent such tragedies from happening. All it does is decrease the chances of anyone being able to stop the massacre once it starts. As we have seen begging for mercy does not work.

SteamWake

10-27-10, 11:33 AM

We're on the 2d because someone said that legally having a firearm at a rally was tantamount to assault. That was the point, right, else why bring it up?

Other than the fact it has absolutly nothing to do with voter fraud in Nevada ?

Just a diversion is all.

I dont see them discussing Black Panthers with billy clubs at polling places.

But .. meh.. I should know better than expect this group to stay on task.

UnderseaLcpl

10-27-10, 02:40 PM

No, not exactly. We are a small bond firm. (around 100 employees) We are a broker for institutional clients such as banks, credit unions and the like. I can barely spell the word "stock". :ping:

My job description has strayed a lot from what I was hired to do. My main responsibilities include financial reporting (i.e. statements and holding reports and portfolio analytics). I also do a lot of our marketing and public event sort of deals. I write a lot of our research, as well as do presentations to industry groups as required. My interest in economics has stemmed from that sort of thing. I also had the good fortune of having worked with a PhD in Economics for the first few years of my career who was a sort of mentor/guru to me.

Sounds a lot more fun than my job. I have a lot of questions I'd like to ask, especially regarding what you learned from the PhD, but I suppose here isn't really the place.

I believe in the role our firm plays in the market. We do a lot of municipal underwriting. Without an underwriting, that school doesn't get built, or that road doesn't get repaired, that sort of thing. Municipalities need access to the capital markets, and that's what we provide. We also deal a lot in SBA loans. We buy them from banks. If a bank knows that they have a willing buyer standing ready to take on their SBA loans in exchange for cash, they're more likely to make said loans. We provide liquidity for that market, which helps small business borrowers.

Sorry to keep asking questions but does your firm receive state insurance on SBA loans it purchases, or is this process outside the normal bounds of SBA-bank relations? I'm just curious.

Other than that I don't really have anything to say about such a firm. I'm naturally cautious of anything having to do with the government incentivizing or penalizing the market, but it sounds like your firm provides a function that is, in a way, similar to the FDIC, and I think that thing was a grea idea.

As far as being a private investor - first off I don't have the capital to invest.
I don't buy that for a second. In today's e-commerce world you can get started with just a few hundred dollars and invest in literally anything that takes your fancy. I got started in currency exchange just a few months ago with $500 and I've already made almost twice that trading precious metals against the dollar and, for a short time, the dollar against the Euro. You can do the same thing in the stock or futures markets if you just pay attention to market factors. For instance, the elections are taking place in, what, less than a week now? Following the Republican seizure of the House (and perhaps the Senate), you'll see a short, sharp burst in retail stocks followed by a steady decline that drops off more sharply as Christmas gets closer. The smart thing to do would have been to invest back in July or August before the market began to take off in anticipation of the Republican return and the onset of shipping for the holiday season, but even now you could turn a profit.

I assume that what you mean to say is that you don't have enough capital to invest to make it worth your time; or that you don't have the time to invest in the first place. That's completely understandable. However........

Second off, the deck is stacked against individual investors in the stock market. It's a sucker's game. The Daily Show (forgive the source, but Lord knows they have it pegged here...actually, you know what, don't forgive the soruce. TDS is the best damn news show on TV) on "high frequency trading": http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/10/cash-cow-high-frequency-trading/

.........this is complete nonsense. Granted, it is funny, but the message is all wrong, oversimplified, and has to resort to inane mockery to make a point. Yeah, there are algorithms out there that can anticipate a trend that is already quantifiable and in motion, or respond to preconditions, and they are used in high-frequency trading, but that's a game for investors who have tons of capital and seeking a lot of small returns over a short period of time. The deck is, by no means, stacked against private investors. Take a lesson from Warren Buffet, the key is to make longer-term investments in markets that you know are going to be profitable. Buy grain futures. Invest in railroads. Get in on that green-energy horsecrap that you know is going succeed because of state subsidy and the idiocy of the electorate. Assuming, of course, that capital gains taxes don't screw everything up by adding a ridiculous penalty on investment (another reason to ride the Republican wave, regardless of what they do)

This stuff is not beyond your reach, not by a longshot. The message that the Daily Show is delivering is that all hope is lost and that we, the people, are all screwed because Wall Street has rigged the game. It's surprisingly consistent with the message of the left. "You can't win, don't even try, we'll protect you if you just give us the power" and all that other glaringly transparent nonsense.

Part 2 later. Again, not a Democrat. :03:

Okay, true enough. My bad. I'm sorry. We've seen eye-to-eye on enough issues that I should know that you're not a Democrat. Even so, you are quite to the left of me on economic issues from my viewpoint, so I hope you'll forgive the mislabeling, you socialist:DL

mookiemookie

10-27-10, 02:50 PM

Sorry to keep asking questions but does your firm receive state insurance on SBA loans it purchases, or is this process outside the normal bounds of SBA-bank relations? I'm just curious. SBA loans are 80% backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. If a borrower defaults, the note holder is guaranteed timely payment of principal and interest. Banks hold the unguaranteed portion and sell the guaranteed portion.

Okay, true enough. My bad. I'm sorry. We've seen eye-to-eye on enough issues that I should know that you're not a Democrat. Even so, you are quite to the left of me on economic issues from my viewpoint, so I hope you'll forgive the mislabeling, you socialist:DL

Hah...the Dem's are completely and utterly spineless wimps. They kowtow to special interest and are just as in the pockets of special interest lobbyists as the other guys. Whereas the Republicans have bad economic policies, the Dem's are fairly clueless about any economic policy at all. I can't in good conscience throw my lot in with that group.

Aramike

10-27-10, 03:07 PM

Is that what you want? Do you really want every bar-room scuffle, every road rage incident to have the potential to escalate into a gunfight?And your ability to exercise your right is eliminating my right to not have to live in the Wild West.Odd counter-points, considering that guns are currently legal and none of these are the status-quo. You making them leads me to believe that you're not seeing the issue for what it really is but rather for what your fear makes you believe it is.

As such, it would be pointless to discuss this further because my arguments lie in the real world and I have no idea of the parameters of the fake world your arguments are coming from.

PS: Regarding your "gun fight" comment, yes I would prefer it be able to escalate into a gun fight than a straight up murder of a defenseless victim. At least the former provides the victim a fighting chance.

AngusJS

10-27-10, 10:08 PM

Odd counter-points, considering that guns are currently legal and none of these are the status-quo. You making them leads me to believe that you're not seeing the issue for what it really is but rather for what your fear makes you believe it is.:haha:

If there are no guns, there will be no gun violence. As soon as you make guns easier to procure, you're ensuring that gun violence will rise. As the police can't be everywhere, gun lovers will say everyone should defend themselves from this gun violence with a gun. Which might not be so bad if people are always rational, if there were no people ready to snap, if there were no fools with something to prove, no stilted lovers, etc. - but there are, and thus putting guns in the hands of even non-criminals just increases the risk of further violence.

The thing is, I don't want to own a gun, but the logic of gun proliferation practically forces me to get one. Yet I'd be even less safe if everyone does the same.

And before you ask about banning knives - you can run from a guy with a knife, but you can't run from a bullet.

my arguments lie in the real world and I have no idea of the parameters of the fake world your arguments are coming from.This from the guy who brought up the idea of gun ownership as a deterrent against your own country's army.

PS: Regarding your "gun fight" comment, yes I would prefer it be able to escalate into a gun fight than a straight up murder of a defenseless victim. At least the former provides the victim a fighting chance.You're assuming that the attempted murder is preordained to happen, and the result will hinge on whether the victim is armed. I'm saying that by arming everyone, things that start out as low level crime (a bar room scuffle) can become a gunfight if everyone is armed - it's not about defending yourself from the bad guy, it's about precluding the possibility of the crime happening at all.

Aramike

10-28-10, 12:08 AM

If there are no guns, there will be no gun violence. As soon as you make guns easier to procure, you're ensuring that gun violence will rise. As the police can't be everywhere, gun lovers will say everyone should defend themselves from this gun violence with a gun. Which might not be so bad if people are always rational, if there were no people ready to snap, if there were no fools with something to prove, no stilted lovers, etc. - but there are, and thus putting guns in the hands of even non-criminals just increases the risk of further violence.

The thing is, I don't want to own a gun, but the logic of gun proliferation practically forces me to get one. Yet I'd be even less safe if everyone does the same.

And before you ask about banning knives - you can run from a guy with a knife, but you can't run from a bullet.So wait - you're actually proposing the elimination of guns altogether?

Have you ever heard the term "pragmatism"?This from the guy who brought up the idea of gun ownership as a deterrent against your own country's army.Yeah, I know, right? Many apologies for positing a concise argument that clearly flies beyond your abilities in comprehension. I'll try not to do that again when discussing ideas with you, as I'd hate to confuse you further as demonstrated by such an ill conceived mischaracterization of my argument.

Are those words too big for you? Should I simplify them?You're assuming that the attempted murder is preordained to happen, and the result will hinge on whether the victim is armed. I'm saying that by arming everyone, things that start out as low level crime (a bar room scuffle) can become a gunfight if everyone is armed - it's not about defending yourself from the bad guy, it's about precluding the possibility of the crime happening at all. Do you actually attempt to understand any other viewpoint or are you too busy calculating a response?

Sailor Steve

10-28-10, 12:37 AM

If there are no guns, there will be no gun violence.
There will never be "no guns". Unless you take them away from the police and the military as well, they will be there. I don't trust the police to protect me at all times, and I don't trust them not to turn against me when I'm defenseless.

As soon as you make guns easier to procure, you're ensuring that gun violence will rise.
Then why does Utah, which has very open gun laws, have so much less gun violence than New York or California?

As the police can't be everywhere, gun lovers will say everyone should defend themselves from this gun violence with a gun.
Since, as you say, the police can't be everywhere, how does an out-of-shape sixty-year-old protect himself from the 200-pound thug who comes in his window in the middle of the night? Or the single mother with three kids? Or the woman about to be raped on a dark street?

No, the gun is not a magic wand, but in the hands of someone who is not afraid to use it and knows how, guns have saved far more lives than they've taken.

Which might not be so bad if people are always rational, if there were no people ready to snap, if there were no fools with something to prove, no stilted lovers, etc. - but there are, and thus putting guns in the hands of even non-criminals just increases the risk of further violence.
That's a straight-up talking point. Violence comes from violent people. Yes, guns make it easier to commit violence, but they also make it easier to defend against it.

The thing is, I don't want to own a gun, but the logic of gun proliferation practically forces me to get one. Yet I'd be even less safe if everyone does the same.
Not so. I don't currently own a gun, at least not one I can carry around on the street. Yet waiting for a bus the other day I saw a man with a sidearm openly strapped to his hip. It didn't bother me at all, because it was obvious he meant no harm to me or anyone else around.

And before you ask about banning knives - you can run from a guy with a knife, but you can't run from a bullet.
Maybe you can. I'm not that agile anymore.

You're assuming that the attempted murder is preordained to happen, and the result will hinge on whether the victim is armed. I'm saying that by arming everyone, things that start out as low level crime (a bar room scuffle) can become a gunfight if everyone is armed - it's not about defending yourself from the bad guy, it's about precluding the possibility of the crime happening at all.
Where a 'barroom scuffle', as you put it, is concerned, you have a point. But when it's a dedicated attack, there is no protection other than equal force, or greater. You are afraid of random gun violence, but without that equalizer the bigger, stronger predators are unchallenged. Police? They file a lot more reports on home-invasion murders than reports on the ones they prevented.

AngusJS

10-28-10, 09:25 AM

So wait - you're actually proposing the elimination of guns altogether?
Have you ever heard the term "pragmatism"?I'm for restricting guns to gun ranges where they would be kept under lock and key.

And I didn't know all arguments have to be pragmatic, or that what's not pragmatic today will NEVER be pragmatic in the future.

Yeah, I know, right? Many apologies for positing a concise argument that clearly flies beyond your abilities in comprehension. I'll try not to do that again when discussing ideas with you, as I'd hate to confuse you further as demonstrated by such an ill conceived mischaracterization of my argument.

Are those words too big for you? Should I simplify them?Do you actually attempt to understand any other viewpoint or are you too busy calculating a response?What's especially ironic is that you were the one who completely missed my points, perhaps due to some intellectual deficiency on your part, and thus have chosen to descend to needless insults. Anyway, I'm reminded now of why I (informally) ignored your posts until recently. I'll set you to "Ignore" now.

AngusJS

10-28-10, 10:11 AM

Then why does Utah, which has very open gun laws, have so much less gun violence than New York or California?Because Utah has a population of 2 million, while California has 35 and NY 19? And because your biggest city is peanuts compared to NYC or LA, and I would guess its density is lower than either?

And because so many morally upstanding Mormons live there? :DL

Why does Texas have a higher gun death rate, even though NY has much stricter gun laws?

Since, as you say, the police can't be everywhere, how does an out-of-shape sixty-year-old protect himself from the 200-pound thug who comes in his window in the middle of the night? Or the single mother with three kids? Or the woman about to be raped on a dark street?Pepperspray?

That's a straight-up talking point. Violence comes from violent people. Yes, guns make it easier to commit violence, but they also make it easier to defend against it.I don't think people are either violent or they aren't. And it's not that guns just make it easier to commit violence, it's that they make it easier to escalate an otherwise low level violent act.

And if a mugger comes up to you and draws a gun before you can, how does it help? It seems like they would be helpful only under certain limited circumstances.

Maybe you can. I'm not that agile anymore.My point is, you can't mow down dozens of people in a few seconds with a knife - unless you're a ninja - but you can with a gun. Guns also tend to have much longer effective ranges than knives do. :DL

Takeda Shingen

10-28-10, 10:18 AM

Angus, much of your argument relies on the belief that we are able to remove the gun from the criminal's hands. Unfortunately, laws only restrict honest people, and guns would continue to be readily available to the unlawful, even in the footsteps of sweeping reform. So the argument comes down to the restriction of firearms for the lawful members of society who prove to be no threat to the public at large.

tater

10-28-10, 11:08 AM

Angus, Utah RATES are lower.

So population doesn't matter in the least.

Gun violence in the US above European levels is almost entirely due to minorities. The US rate for "whites" is similar to Europe. It's literally 10X higher for blacks, and somewhere in between for Hispanics, etc. The underlying cultural problems in those communities is the issue, not guns. Fatherlessness results in poverty, and also criminality (a bastard kid in the US is FAR more likely to be convicted of a felony in his lifetime. Can't remember if it's 900% more likely, or higher. It's huge.). The reason blacks are overrepresented as criminals is that over 80% of kids in that demographic are born to homes with no father in the house.

This basically shows that the guns are not the problem.

Note also that the criminals (who happen to be largely minorities) who use guns use them because they are useful tools for their "work." They NEED these tools to do their "work" of violence. They already buy the vast majority of their firearms illegally. Drugs, for example, are illegal in the US, and are none the less shipped in by the ton. TRUCKS drive illegally across the border to our south, laden with contraband. Banning guns simply increases another violent black-market for more guns (there is already a black market for guns for criminals).

Sailor Steve

10-28-10, 11:23 AM

Because Utah has a population of 2 million, while California has 35 and NY 19? And because your biggest city is peanuts compared to NYC or LA, and I would guess its density is lower than either?
An excellent point. It also shows that what's good for New York is not necessarily good for Utah. A national gun ban would directly affect my friend, who has problems with mountain lions bothering his horses. It would also affect the guy in Wyoming, where a bear can be in your yard and the nearest cop is three hours away.

And because so many morally upstanding Mormons live there? :DL
Well, you have me there.

Why does Texas have a higher gun death rate, even though NY has much stricter gun laws?
Don't know, but "gun death rates" also include bad guys getting shot by good guys (including cops), so there needs to be a finer separation in statistics.

Pepperspray?
It helps, but, as with your knife, the attacker has to be real close. With my gun I can hit him from across the room.

I don't think people are either violent or they aren't. And it's not that guns just make it easier to commit violence, it's that they make it easier to escalate an otherwise low level violent act.
That's true, but since we're onto statistics, how often does that happen with the millions of guns in the US currently? How often does a quarrel between gun owners not escalate? How many time this year were guns used to foil a robbery, but no shots were fired? How many lives were saved in that fashion?

And if a mugger comes up to you and draws a gun before you can, how does it help? It seems like they would be helpful only under certain limited circumstances.
It doesn't. And it doesn't help if he hits you from behind with a baseball bat. But if you have the means to stop him you have a better chance than if you don't.

My point is, you can't mow down dozens of people in a few seconds with a knife - unless you're a ninja - but you can with a gun. Guns also tend to have much longer effective ranges than knives do. :DL
Very true. On the other hand the last time we had a shooting spree here in Salt Lake, the shooter was stopped by someone else with a gun, so it goes both ways.

Aramike

10-28-10, 06:58 PM

I'm for restricting guns to gun ranges where they would be kept under lock and key.

And I didn't know all arguments have to be pragmatic, or that what's not pragmatic today will NEVER be pragmatic in the future.If you're talking about real solutions, than yes, it is prudent to be pragmatic.

...unless of course you are admitting that your arguments are of the "pie in the sky" variety and shouldn't be taken seriously (we don't need guns because we have puppies and unicorns, right?).What's especially ironic is that you were the one who completely missed my points, perhaps due to some intellectual deficiency on your part, and thus have chosen to descend to needless insults. Anyway, I'm reminded now of why I (informally) ignored your posts until recently. I'll set you to "Ignore" now. Just because I don't agree with your posts don't mean that I missed your points - it's just that I have dedicated my responses to showing how they were wrong. You didn't afford me the same courtesy.

Oh, and regarding the "ignore" thing ... go nuts. If you can dish the inciteful garbage: This from the guy who brought up the idea of gun ownership as a deterrent against your own country's army. ...but can't handle the inciteful garbage shovelled right back at you, you're not worth conversing with in the first place.

Keep it respectful and so will I. Fail to do so, you're gonna get it back so feel free to ignore me and run home to mommy with your ball in hand.