We're in a crazy period. Home values have been rising and "flipping" is starting up again in places like Miami and Las Vegas, today the stock market is going through the roof, setting a new record. The jobs report tells us that jobs are being created at a very slow pace and that new unemployment claims are down.
At the same time, the new jobs don't pay as well as the jobs they are replacing and the income gap is wider than ever.
Is it time for a revolution?
It is things like this that make me worry about a police state future.
I am reminded of the scene in Star Wars where Paplatine names himself emperor for the good of everyone and gets cheers. I'd quote Amidala but I don't remember it clearly enough & need to get to bed soon.
I agree. It constantly amazes me how much freedom people are willing to throw away in order to have even the slightest modicum of a sense of security. And all in the name of "prevention", which will never happen anyway. I listen to people like John Steward talk about how all guns are evil and if we just got rid of them all, we'd live in a world of peace and harmony, like there was never any violence before guns were invented and the only violence that ever occurs are gun related and guns are never, ever used to prevent crime. It amazes me that someone who is so smart in almost every other way can be so self-deluded when it comes to something like this.
And all in the name of "prevention", which will never happen anyway.
Well, now wait just a second. Some loss of privacy does result in nipping some terror attacks in the bud. You can't deny that. Will we ever nip all of them? Will there be an end to terror acts and threats? No. I'm not saying giving up some rights and some privacy is good; I'm saying to express the idea that it's never successful simply isn't true.
Is it worth the trade-off to gain a modicum of respite from stress? Living a stressful life simply isn't good under just about any circumstance, so perhaps it is.
BTW, I agree that a lot of the anti-gun talk is mumbo-jumbo and woo and head-in-the-sand, plus wishful thinking.
I wasn't saying we can't prevent any violence. What I'm saying is that the proposals that the Left are putting out there are useless. Flailing in the dark with policies that strip away civil liberties while not addressing the issue is unreasonable. Expecting disarmament of the civilian population to "prevent" violence is simply backwards thinking as every statistic clearly shows (or, at the very worse, it shows *no* correlation).
As to imposing policies that oppress people simply to make other people "feel" better - well, I disagree with that. If people want to stress out because I own a gun for hunting / self-protection, that's their problem. Maybe they should actually go out and learn some real facts instead of just assuming that everyone who owns a gun will some day "go postal". I don't have a responsibility to placate to people's unwarranted fears and prejudices and unsubstantiated stresses. As far as I'm concerned, we are becoming a nation of pansies because we give in too much to people's idiotic over-reactions as it is.
I agree completely, Keith, that you have a right to a gun for hunting and self protection, but I can't agree that you need an AK-47 or a "Street Sweeper" for either.
Once again, since when have our liberties been restricted by "need"? And why do you care if I have an AK or not? What could possibly be your reason for screwing me out of my civil liberties because of unsubstantiated fear? Why are we not all living in apartments? After all, who "needs" a house? Why are we not all riding bicycles and public transportation? After all, who "needs" a car or an SUV? Why don't we make this a socialist country? After all, who "needs" their freedoms? How could you possibly think that your determination of what I "need" allows you the right to restrict my freedom?
BTW, I disagree with you that I do not "need" an AK or AR. The whole point behind the 2nd amendment is to defend the republic both from outside threats as well as threats from within. I am not part of a "well armed militia" if I am disarmed.
Second, why would I be allowed a pistol or other rifle for self defense, but not another weapon for the simple fact that it has a pistol grip? What possible difference could it make what the aesthetic of a weapon is that I am holding.
Just to be clear, we are ONLY talking about aesthetics here. The difference between a hunting rifle and an "assault weapon" (like an AK or an AR) is simply what it looks like, nothing more.
Yeah, let's wait for a few deaths to accumulate before we embrace "unsubstantiated fear."
But before that happens. what justification do you have for deer hunting with an AK-47, or a Street Sweeper? Or is that what you use to hunt rabbits?
Bear in mind, I have used both, and I have hunted both deer and rabbits, until I decided I would kill no more, but I never used either weapon.
RE: "The difference between a hunting rifle and an "assault weapon" (like an AK or an AR) is simply what it looks like, nothing more."
Keith, you and I have been friends for a year, and I hope you can handle disagreements, which is what we have here - "The difference between a hunting rifle and an 'assault weapon' (like an AK or an AR) is simply what it looks like, nothing more."
A hunting rifle holds, on average, 7 rounds - the AK-47 holds 30. If you can't bag a deer, or an intruder, with 7 rounds, what makes you think you can do any more damage with 30?
@archaeopterryx - Dude. You and I have talked about many things and agreed on many of them. The way we have always done that is by having reasonable debate.
What have we always said about religiots trying to brow beat people into "believing" because of threats of "eternal damnation"? Seems to me that both of our arguments have always been "show us the evidence", right?
This argument is pretty much the same. As I have stated, the evidence clearly shows that gun control, at the very best, does not have any impact on crime (including violent crimes) and at worse (from your perspective), it has a negative correlation. In order to be pro gun control, you either have to be making that decision based on fear of something you don't understand or you just want government to have complete control of our lives. But it sure isn't because the evidence leads you to that conclusion.
Who said anything about hunting with an AK-47? This is the strawman argument that the xians throw at us all the time. I very specifically said that the 2nd amendment is NOT about hunting or even self-protection (although that is an advantageous side effect). It is about defending the Republic from both outside and internal threats. It is NOT, however, about defending a authoritarian and totalitarian government. To argue that I don't "need" an AK for deer hunting is completely beside the point.
But, if you insist on knowing, no, I don't hunt deer with an AK. But I know several people that hunt deer and elk with .308 or .338 caliber rifles. But, yet again, you are specifically talking about aesthetics. I happen to hunt with a Savage 300. It doesn't happen to have a pistol grip. But the .308s and .338s do. What's the difference? It's easier for them to hit the target because the weapon is designed to be more comfortable to shoot.
Let's talk about your statement "...let's wait for a few deaths to accumulate...". Where do you stand on banning cars? There are FAR, FAR, FAR more deaths and damage done to both people and property by cars each year than by guns (especially if you remove all suicides by firearms) in this country. How many deaths are there by firearms each year? Let's take the worst case and include all suicides, police shootings and self-defense shootings. Let's say 9000. There is roughly 1 gun per person in this country. Let's call it 300,000,000. That is a rate of .003%. So, yes, let's wait until we accumulate more deaths by vehicle before we start talking about banning cars. Oh, wait, I bet you ignore this statement again because you WANT your car, right? Or is there some other reason you completely ignore this argument?
I'm not trying to be a dick here. I'm trying to get you to see why your argument is fallacious. Again, I'm all for trying to reduce violent crimes. My problem, however, is that the proposed "solution" of randomly stripping civil rights way from people is not going to get us there. You are blaming the tool, and not looking at the true problem that needs to be addressed.
Then there's still the fact that even if AK-47's and their ilk were to disappear overnight, the effect on gun crime would be minimal since most gun crimes are perpetrated using handguns or shotguns, not assault weapons or guns looking like assault weapons. Handguns and shotguns will never be eliminated because they have too many legitimate and legal uses.
RE: "some people DO actually hunt with AKs and other 'assault style' weapons" - and do they still have the audacity to call it, "sport"? What's next, rocket launchers? Or do they already use those too?
RE: "so, extending this logically, you are advocating disarmament of ALL guns from ALL citizens (since at least 95% of these crimes are committed with handguns" - your extension, not mine - I never advocated total disarmament.
Neither am I sidestepping your idea of banning cars, by far, the majority of car deaths are accidental, few ever decide to use cars as a murder weapon, can you say the same about guns? When cars edge out guns as the murder weapon of choice, we should certainly consider banning those that serve no other useful purpose than murder.
RE: "We are wasting time trying to blame and control a tool rather than actually addressing the root problem." - there's no reason we can't do both, and while the socio-economic solution can be a long, drawn out one, many lives can be saved in the interim.