 |
Another completely ridiculous statement.Quote:
You are saying they get one now, it is dangerous to call a cop, a murder might show up
And your point is?Quote:
You don't get it, do you. The police are on call for e.g., volatile DV matters or robberies or vehicle accidents. The professionals get involved if it is e.g., a mental health crisis or an argument resulting from long-brewing interpersonal conflicts.
No it is not ridiculous, Children have been shot by cops, women have been shot by cops, blacks have been shot and otherwise killed by cops and many of these people have been unarmedQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
There appears to be a culture of brutality and a shoot first policy
No there doesn't. That's why your statement is ridiculous. You are taking very isolated, very rare occurrences and trying to portray them as the norm. It's a completely foolish and wildly inaccurate approach. It's the same as if I met two dumb Aussies and then decided that all Aussies must be dumb.Quote:
There appears to be a culture of brutality and a shoot first policy
No one knew he was disabled so that line of argument doesn't fly .The compliant press kept that under wraps .Thankfully before SCOTUS got cold feet after FDR threatened court packing ("The switch in time that saved nine") ;the court was able to gut most of Roosevelts worse tendencies . If there is any defense to his acts it is in that he did not believe they were ideological based . He like Bismarck believed that a partial implementation of socialism would sate the more radical socialists ,both international socialists and national socialists in the US .Quote:
Surely, you're not suggesting this man in a wheelchair was proposing himself as a dictator like Stalin, et al. Encouraging Americans during the Great Depression called for exceptional leadership.
His New Deal policies, even with the SCOTUS set backs , brought about an unconstitutional colossal expansion in Federal power, spending, regulation, and control over virtually every facet of American life. It was a close to dictatorship as we can get because the leviathan he left us lives on .He transformed the American Republic almost beyond recognition. I think he believed he was benevolent and acting in our best interests . And maybe he would not call what he envisioned a dictatorship . But that is where his instincts were . Just like Woodrow Wilson before him.
As for his relationship with Stalin .... well he was much more comfortable dealing with him than Churchill. He gave away the farm at Yalta . FDR said that he admired the fact that the Soviet people “all seem really to want to do what is good for their society instead of(like us Americans ) wanting to do for themselves.” .He went on " We take care of ourselves and think about the welfare of society afterwards ."
In 1945, when he came back from the Yalta Conference, he told members of his cabinet that he found in Stalin’s nature “the way in which a Christian gentleman should behave.”
Your wheelchair/disabled part is true, but the rest of the statement stands as exerting leadership, not proclaiming a dictatorship.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Virtually EVERY facet? Colossal expansion? Exaggerate much?Quote:
His New Deal policies, even with the SCOTUS set backs , brought about an unconstitutional colossal expansion in Federal power, spending, regulation, and control over virtually every facet of American life.
Wrong. The closest we ever got was the amoral nutcase who was just defeated in 2020.Quote:
It was a close to dictatorship as we can get
Funny, it looks the same to me after Roosevelt.Quote:
He transformed the American Republic almost beyond recognition.
The rest of your message is simply the now cliche'd right-wing book on Roosevelt. Yalta, Stalin, the New Deal, etc., - it's all been done before and continues in the minds of Roosevelt haters even unto 80 years later!
Geez Tom. If FDR's policies were so unconstitutional why have they stood the test of time and the repubs relentless attack? You guys can't be THAT incompetent for That long can you?
Multiple deaths from shootings happen every day in America, and the few get attention and hardly considered rare.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
2020 Saw More Gun Deaths in the US Than Any Year in Over Two Decades (businessinsider.com)
Quote:
But many experts say that defining mass shootings based on how many are shot rather than the number killed offers a fuller picture of the scale of gun violence in the US. It also helps highlight incidents that generally don't make headlines and disproportionately impact Black Americans and people of color. Public mass shootings also account for just a fraction of total gun deaths in the US, and focusing on them can lead to myopic perspectives on gun violence.
Do I really have to explain to you how difficult it is to overturn SCOTUS decisions ? A slam dunk like Plessy took almost 60 years to overturn .Quote:
If FDR's policies were so unconstitutional why have they stood the test of time and the repubs relentless attack?
As I explained ;Roosevelt by threatening to pack the court accomplished his goals .The court was so intimidated by the threat that they stopped finding the New Deal legislation unconstitutional . Then when he got huge majorities in Congress after the 1938 election ;he was able to swing the court to a progressive liberal majority .
Once SCOTUS decides it then it is extremely difficult to over turn (the nonsense principle of 'stare decisis et non quieta movere' <to stand by decisions and not disturb settled matters > ) Stare decisis has little to no bearing in determining if a law is constitutional . But justices cling to the notion that once decided the issue is settled . It is a lazy logic .
Isn't that a matter of opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Not always. "Decided" issues have been overturned many times in the past.Quote:
But justices cling to the notion (stare decisis) that once decided the issue is settled
yes not always . I explained in my opening paragraph to Tal that stare decisis makes it much more difficult because justices are almost loath to overturn the decision of previous courts .Quote:
Not always. "Decided" issue have been overturned many times in the past.
That is pretty much the conventional agreed historical record . I'll give you the name of the case and the justice that was so intimidated that he caved ....... West Coast Hotel v Parrish ; Associate justice Owen Roberts . He switched his vote during the debate in Congress about packing the court . I will agree that some revisionists have claimed he was planning on changing his vote before the controversy over court packing . Since Roberts burned his legal and judicial records, there is nothing definitive to determine that .Quote:
The court was so intimidated by the threat that they stopped finding the New Deal legislation unconstitutional
Isn't that a matter of opinion?
Chief Justice Hughes ;trying to save the court's rep said that in no way was the decision determined by political pressure . But clearly it was . The decision came down less than 2 months after Roosevelt announced his desire to pack the court .
Quid's threat will also work well on the weak spine John Roberts (maybe Kavanaugh also).....hmmm Roberts ...... I see a pattern here . John Roberts caved under the political pressure during the Obamacare case and did a last minute switch .
I'm way out of my league here with the history of the SC. But here's a link where it says over 300 decisions of the Court have been subsequently overturned by the Court.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't know about last minute, but I did wonder about his reasoning for his vote. Frankly, I thought it was forced, but I was glad for it anyway.Quote:
John Roberts caved under the political pressure during the Obamacare case and did a last minute switch .
and why do you think that is? The availability of guns, perhaps? The relaxed attitude to gun ownership, gun sales and gun use?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You are actually victims of the NRA and idiots like Charlton Heston
And why are males needing all those guns?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
A neighbor/homeowner (safe neighborhood) almost shot a woman neighbor in the head with his beloved revolver when she knocked on the door at 11 one night, needing two eggs for the cake she was baking.
Who bakes a cake without preparation at 11 pm and goes to a neighbour at that time of night. Of course he would challenge some one but greeting them with a gun is bizarre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Why do males need guns and honking great SUV, as a woman you should know it is compensation, but shusssss, you can't say that. Must be a lot of compensation going on over there
Guns are far less available now than fifty years above, and in many large cities handguns are prohibited. In addition, to say there is some sort of "relaxed attitude" toward gun sales is to say that you have no idea of what you are talking about. Many of your facts are not straight.Quote:
and why do you think that is? The availability of guns, perhaps? The relaxed attitude to gun ownership, gun sales and gun use? You are actually victims of the NRA and idiots like Charlton Heston
Two points. Leading the way in this supposed expansion were, of course, cities controlled by democrats. "In over a dozen cities across the U.S., homicides have increased 50 percent or more compared with years prior.
According to the nonprofit newsroom The Trace, homicides, specifically, reflected this statistic as Chicago, Philadelphia, New York City, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Houston and Detroit, among other cities, saw increases compared to 2019."
https://www.newsweek.com/shootings-5...s-2020-1556763
The link above was to some outfit called the Gun Violence Archive. I think I'll wait for the FBI stats before I go crazy about it.
Ok JL so your answer is to outlaw demonrats in politics and this will solve the gun problem, a problem you pelicans caused by your lax attitudes to gun control
There are no lax attitudes towards gun control. Gun control is FAR stricter now than fifty years ago. If you are going to comment on the U.S., then spend some time learning the subject.
Just becuase it is stricter doesn't mean it is as effective as it needs to be, your population has grown 50% in that time, drugs have become a factor. Times change JL but you don't change with them, your thinking is stuck in the eighteenth century
Gun control is not strict - that's the problem. It is, however, extremely ineffective. When Democrats are blamed for the gun violence because they are the political party in urban centers, you know the Republicans are lacking any serious analysis of the problem. Every piece of legislation the Dems originate is shut down immediately by the NRA controlled Republican party. The Second Amendment is nothing but a smokescreen for public consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
That is more accurate.Quote:
Just becuase it is stricter doesn't mean it is as effective as it needs to be, your population has grown 50% in that time, drugs have become a factor.
Just more nonsense. No one has suggested times con't change. And if your eighteenth century comment is aimed at the Constitution, then yes I do believe in the rule of law.Quote:
Times change JL but you don't change with them, your thinking is stuck in the eighteenth century
the law of the ancients, it is nothing more than ancestor worship
If you don't understand the rule of law, and you clearly don't, it would be better to simply say so.Quote:
it is nothing more than ancestor worship
I understand the rule of law, I live under just laws that don't allow gun massacres, you don't have the rule of law, you have anarchy and it is because you have an eighteenth century mentality where guns are concerned. How long is it since the last Indian massacre? when did the British in Canada last invade? when did Mexico invade? Had to deal with any rattlers or grizzly's lately? When was the militia last called to defend the nation?
Perhaps if you called out the militia to deal with gun violence, drugs and other undesirable elements there might be a point, but you have a standing military, you have police forces up the wahzoo and you still have massacres, so the whole concept must exist on a false premise
You have hit the nail on the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The continued gun control problem is caused by none of those things you mentioned. It IS based on a false premise. The false premise being a certainty that eventually the government will take over and remove all freedoms and all liberties from the citizens. Gun ownership is believed to be the best defense against our own government if the left gained power and influence.
This idea took root in the red scare of the 1900s and was strengthened by the Bolshevik takeover of Czarist Russia. It reared its ugly head in the McCarthy era of the post war 1940s and resulted in blacklisting by the thought police in Congress of several Hollywood actors and directors who made movies supporting our WW2 ally Russia. The takeover of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union and the fall of Nationalist China to Mao solidified the notion that Communism was on the rise. The loss in Vietnam further exacerbated the problem.
Fear of anarchy and godless Communism ruled the day for those of a certain persuasion that developed into the fringe of the Republican Party which has further developed today into a general takeover of the Party by this fringe group.
Oddly, the idea of a Fascist takeover never bothered the anti-communist people. In fact, as recently as Trump, the autocratic governments of the right have all too frequently been favored by Republican foreign policy.
The fact that citizens armed with pistols and rifles would be no match for the government's military does not seem to have mollified the gun lobby. The combination of narrow history, wishful thinking, and peer pressure is the glue holding the movement together.
The Second Amendment is cited as the main reason for gun ownership, but that's simply a smokescreen to give a shimmer of patriotism to the movement. Any ordinary reading of the Amendment clearly reserves guns to a militia, but that has repeatedly been discarded as untrue due to the financial power and influence of the gun lobby.
Meanwhile the mass shootings continue to slaughter the innocent including children.
25% of women own guns in the US . Of first time ownership in the US in 2020 ;40% were womenQuote:
And why are males needing all those guns?
strange behavior don't you think ? I would not answer the door that time of night unless I was certain who was knocking.Quote:
A neighbor/homeowner (safe neighborhood) almost shot a woman neighbor in the head with his beloved revolver when she knocked on the door at 11 one night, needing two eggs for the cake she was baking.
Having lived in a nation this last year where liberties were routinely violated under the guise of public health and welfare ; I have to question your premise .Quote:
The false premise being a certainty that eventually the government will take over and remove all freedoms and all liberties from the citizens
The most extreme curbs on liberties in the US in the last year occurred in states controlled by Democratic autocrat Governors .Quote:
Oddly, the idea of a Fascist takeover never bothered the anti-communist people. In fact, as recently as Trump, the autocratic governments of the right have all too frequently been favored by Republican foreign policy.
The role of the militia in the time of the framing has been explained plenty of times . It makes zero sense to conclude that an amendment constructed as an individuals defense against tyranny would reserve the right of gun ownership to a militia that acts in accordance to the government direction .Quote:
. Any ordinary reading of the Amendment clearly reserves guns to a militia, but that has repeatedly been discarded as untrue due to the financial power and influence of the gun lobby.
How do you "almost" shoot someone?Quote:
A neighbor/homeowner (safe neighborhood) almost shot a woman neighbor in the head with his beloved revolver when she knocked on the door at 11 one night, needing two eggs for the cake she was baking.
Exactly correct.Quote:
The false premise being a certainty that eventually the government will take over and remove all freedoms and all liberties from the citizens
Having lived in a nation this last year where liberties were routinely violated under the guise of public health and welfare ; I have to question your premise .
The current working false premise is that all the killings are the result of the availability of guns. But if that was the case, then wouldn't everyone who owned a gun be shooting someone? The vast, vast majority of gun-owners don't shoot people. Why is that? Why does this very, very small minority of gun owners shoot people when the vast majority do not? When you think that through, you will have a legitimate premise to work from.
Everything else is just a smoke screen. All the talk about eighteenth century thinking, militias, anarchy, and indian massacres has nothing to do with it.
He was standing in the entryway at the as-yet-unopened door, had cocked the hammer, and was ready to shoot the "intruder" in the head after opening the door.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It's ok to question my premise, but I don't think a public health crisis with over 500,000 dead Americans is a "guise". Crazy Rep Jordan (R) shouted at Dr. Faucci that it was an attack on liberty. Faucci calmly replied it was a matter of public health, not an attack on liberty. That is about as obvious as anything. Jordan proves my thesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
By "extreme curbs" do you mean wearing masks and various lockdowns in order to preserve lives? Those Democratic "autocrat" governors were trying to save lives. As of today, look at the vaccination rates of Dem and Rep governed states.Quote:
The most extreme curbs on liberties in the US in the last year occurred in states controlled by Democratic autocrat Governors .
This is NOT the time of the framing. It is TWO CENTURIES+ later!Quote:
The role of the militia in the time of the framing has been explained plenty of times
Again, you are supporting my thesis that the gun lobby's fear is all about government tyranny, not any patriotic adherence to the Second Amendment.Quote:
It makes zero sense to conclude that an amendment constructed as an individuals defense against tyranny would reserve the right of gun ownership to a militia that acts in accordance to the government direction .
Then by all means repeal the 2nd amendment if you find it outdate . Let's see how far you get with that .Quote:
This is NOT the time of the framing. It is TWO CENTURIES+ later!
Quote:
It makes zero sense to conclude that an amendment constructed as an individuals defense against tyranny would reserve the right of gun ownership to a militia that acts in accordance to the government direction .
Why would a fear of a tyrannical government not be patriotic ? When people fear government there is tyranny . Here is the reverse . When government fears the people there is liberty . The word patriotism is perverted when it is said to mean unquestioned support of the government . The Second Amendment is about self-defense. It's about being able to stop people who would do you harm, whether that's a criminal or the government.Quote:
Again, you are supporting my thesis that the gun lobby's fear is all about government tyranny, not any patriotic adherence to the Second Amendment.
Why did he not shoot?Quote:
He was standing in the entryway at the as-yet-unopened door, had cocked the hammer, and was ready to shoot the "intruder" in the head after opening the door.
Is that similar to the story of the woman who was awakened at 11:00 by an intruder. She lived in Chicago and so was not allowed by the government to have a handgun. The male intruder, who was armed with only a knife, tied her up, raped her, raped her 13 year old daughter, and then strangled both of them to death.
The case was never solved.
Because I shouted "Wait!" as I ran in from the kitchen to open the door and reveal our neighbor standing on the porch.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Then you guys need training on how to defend yourselves in your own home. Identifying a potential target BEFORE you even think about shooting is a basic rule. But suppose the neighbor had been a home invader? What then?Quote:
Because I shouted "Wait!" as I ran in from the kitchen to open the door and reveal our neighbor standing on the porch.
What about the poor woman and her daughter?
Not in this neighborhood.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
He had a potential target. Home invaders don't knock.Quote:
Identifying a potential target BEFORE you even think about shooting is a basic rule. But suppose the neighbor had been a home invader? What then?
That story is not at all similar to mine.Quote:
What about the poor woman and her daughter?
We both know that won't happen - the gunners have done an excellent job of ensuring it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The government (US) does not fear the people (well, except for Jan 6). The government is there by the consent of the governed. Small arms are hardly a defense against a tyrannical government.Quote:
Here is the reverse . When government fears the people there is liberty
Patriotism is supporting the principles upon which our government was founded.
Different subject - Climate Change.
I read your post. Here's a question. Why are climate scientists near unanimous in warning about climate change? For that matter, why are mostly all scientists?
Exactly correct, as the Germans discovered to their dismay in the 1930's.Quote:
Here is the reverse . When government fears the people there is liberty
You mean like the second amendment?Quote:
Patriotism is supporting the principles upon which our government was founded.
Multiple deaths from shootings happen every day in America, and the few get attention and hardly considered rare.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
2020 Saw More Gun Deaths in the US Than Any Year in Over Two Decades (businessinsider.com)
.AND about Chicago, Ill.Quote:
But many experts say that defining mass shootings based on how many are shot rather than the number killed offers a fuller picture of the scale of gun violence in the US. It also helps highlight incidents that generally don't make headlines and disproportionately impact Black Americans and people of color. Public mass shootings also account for just a fraction of total gun deaths in the US, and focusing on them can lead to myopic perspectives on gun violence.
Gun Laws in Chicago - Feldman Criminal Defense
Quote:
Though it is possible to obtain guns illegally, Chicago gun laws exist to regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Illinois. In order to possess firearms or ammunition, residents of Illinois must apply for and obtain a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card issued by Illinois State Police. The state police are also responsible for issuing concealed carry licenses to qualified applicants aged 21 or older who pass a 16-hour training course.
complacency won't solve anything
I don't deny the fact that climate is changing . I question the premise that it is totally AGW . Even if it is ;what is the solution except adapting to the change ? Do you think humans will go carbon neutral in our lifetime ? And even if we did ;climate change is happening anyway .Quote:
Why are climate scientists near unanimous in warning about climate change? For that matter, why are mostly all scientists?
My bumper sticker says "Climate Change Happens " .
Warming happened from 950 to apx 1250 . It was a good time for European humans . Crops were plentiful The Norse explored North America .
It grew very cold prior to the industrial revolution between the 13th century and the 19th .There were ice festivals on the Thames . People could walk across the ice from Staten Island to Manhattan in the winter . It was called the Little Ice Age . Glaciers have been retreating since the Ice Age .
I'm not saying that humans have not contributed to the change . I just ask ;what can realistically be done about it ? Human energy needs are growing as more humans demand the benefits of a 21st century life style . I'm all in with alternatives once they prove they can deliver . For now ;carbon based energy is the only reliable one outside of nukes .
I'm with you Tom the retreat from nuclear is a disgrace
How about some reasonable updates like MOST Americans want outside of elected officials and the bankrupted corrupt gun lobby?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Or a bad cop!Quote:
Why would a fear of a tyrannical government not be patriotic ? When people fear government there is tyranny . Here is the reverse . When government fears the people there is liberty . The word patriotism is perverted when it is said to mean unquestioned support of the government . The Second Amendment is about self-defense. It's about being able to stop people who would do you harm, whether that's a criminal or the government.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:34 AM. |