HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » RC » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »

RC

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: North Dakota
Home country: US of A
Current location: Kansas City MO
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 25,592

About Me

It does not matter where in the political spectrum one adheres. The same rules of right and wrong, good and evil applies to everyone. Our greatest danger of extinction comes from those that think the rules do not apply to them. www.timws.com

Journal Archives

You have it backwards.

Just because one person, or a few, objects to a word or phrase, does not necessarily mean the rest of DU should meekly submit.
DU membership is world wide, with a very wide variety of experiences and views. To acquiesce to the lone (or few) squeaky wheel, is to submit to the lowest common denominator. That only works in math.

No way should the rest of DU just go along on someone's say so, as some suggest we do, just because one or a few have a problem with a word or phrase. That is not how the real world operates. And that is not how DU should be operated either.
Being nice to each other does not mean dumbing down DU to only using words and subjects that are safe for 3rd graders. This is an adult web site. Context matters. Words can change meaning with context.

It is the thought police that doesn't like some words, regardless of context, and wants everyone else to adhere to their views of word usage. That is bullying. That is not being nice to each other either. And on a world wide political web site, where words can mean different things to different people, that is just plain wrong.

DU has a Trash Thread and Ignore feature for a reason. Just because a few have problems with whatever, does not mean the rest of DU has to walk on egg shells around them. The sensitivities of a few does not make automatically make it a problem for the rest of DU. Just because a word or phrase is deemed by someone as sexist, racist or homophobic, is no reason to ban the word. Context again. Making everyone agree is a conservative mind set. This is supposedly a Liberal political web site. So why the lock-step mentality?

If you do ban a word, another will take its place. So why bother? It is the mindset behind the words that is the problem anyway, not the words themselves. It is also the mindset of the thought police that causes problems, where there were none before. So that works both ways.

It is the mind set of those attracted to the "Bushmaster" style, military knock-off, assault rifles.

The Rambo and Dirty Harry wanna-be's. Other than the sheer numbers, it isn't the semi-auto's themselves that are the problem. It is the 'look n feel' of the military knock-offs, that can easily be made fully automatic with the simple addition of rubber bands or a bump stock that feeds the fantasies of the people that are attracted to that style of gun, that are the main problem.
Think of the posters that want to arm the school teachers. Have armed security roaming the halls. Locked-down prison security in public schools. Think of the people that think because two weapons operate the same way, they are somehow the same. No, they are not! It is the look n feel thing that is the difference and the main problem.
Anything except common sense banning the military knock-off weapons that are being used in most of the massacres.
And while we are at it, we need Canadian style licensing and control of ALL hand guns. It is paranoia the makes people think they need one for home or self defense, when they are out and about. They only "need it" because other people think they also "need" to carry "protection" when away from home. More NRA talking points to sell more guns to an already over saturated populace.

We need to first neuter the NRA. Then we need to go after the weapons manufactures with heavy regulation on what they can sell to the civilian population. There is no reason we can not put the terrorist provisions of the Patriot Act to a good use for a change.
Just because it won't be all said and done by midnight on December 31, 2012, does not mean it cannot be done.

Very few on this thread acknowledge the real gun problem in this country.

Or even that there is a problem.
Too many easily obtained, loosely regulated firearms of any and all types.
Anyone can get a hold of a gun in this country. It is easy. Way too easy. Even toddlers can do it.


The basic purpose of guns is to kill things. No other legal item, whose basic purpose is to kill, is in such wide spread use, as they are in this country.
Trying to distract from the bloody trail of death caused by guns by comparing guns to cars, or blaming perpetrators with faulty mental health, or anything else, are just straw man arguments. The obscene proliferation of guns in this country, whose basic design is for killing, is the root of the problem.
Other than hunting rifles, the rest, assault style weapons and hand guns are designed for killing human beings. And many here admit that is why they bought them. Well, that is their primary purpose.
You say you only use yours for target shooting? Well good on you. But that gun you use was was most likely designed to kill your fellow human being, which it is very efficient at doing.
Only guns have the designation of "Weapons". While other items can be used as weapons, that is not their primary purpose, as is with guns. That is the distinction.
The real problem here is a vast over supply of vaguely regulated guns.
The current reasoning seems to be that we need more easily obtained guns because so many people have guns. Anyone else see the problem here? By that reasoning, if we get rid of the guns, no one would need any.
For starts, we should look at Canada and their gun laws.
Would Canadian Laws Prevent Mass Murders in the US

In addition, Canada has special laws against the use of non-hunting firearms. Individuals are granted permission to use such arms only when the individual has genuine needs for restricted firearms or prohibited handguns that include a need to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals where

( a ) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;

( b ) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and

( c ) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.
https://www.impartial-review.com/stories/would-canadian-laws-prevent-mass-murders-in-the-us

a, b, and c do not, as in this country, include simply wanting a hand gun. You have to prove your case first. It is registered and you are registered. And you and it get checked up on.


There are 7 billion people in the world.
There are 311.6 million people in the united States.
There are around 600 million guns in the world.
There are almost 300 million guns in the United States.
The United States has less that 4.5% of the worlds population.
The United States has the world's highest gun death rate.
So why do we have or need almost one half of the worlds supply of guns? How can this not be a problem?
Shouldn't 4.5% of the world's supply of guns be enough?

The pattern you are seeing is there.

Think of the swarm(s) that come out periodically. Or the Word Police, who are quite often members of a swarm. Bullies all, while pretending to be victims.

Think of a descriptive word. Most any descriptive word and someone will object to it, because it is "hurtful" to either them or someone they know, or a specified group, so therefore the rest of DU is suppose to just not use that word anymore, from their say-so, from that point on, because someone somewhere, might fit that description.

Edited to add: The psychical and mental problems people have, are not monolithic. An example is the Sandy Point shooter being described as a "Loon" because of his mental problems. Someone else then objected, because they also had a mental problem. Never mind the problems were totally unrelated, totally separate issues. The worst of the worst was labeled a "Loon" and so this person assumed that implied everyone with mental health issues were being labeled "Loons". See how that works? There is too much of this kind of BS going on on DU.

STOPIT already! You are making too much sense.

We gotta deal with the symptoms, dontchaknow? To do other wise requires too much thinking and logic. We gotta look at all the jobs all this school security creates. Never mind reality. Never mind if it can't work. Never mind the cost. Never mind it is obvious it is the excess of guns of all kinds that are the root of the problem. But at least we'd be doing something, right?


For those that think more security by more guns is the answer -->

And in case you missed it --> <--

The collective IQ of DU is dropping daily. That is not sarcasm.

The basic purpose of guns is to kill things. No other legal item, whose basic purpose is to kill, is in such wide spread use.
Trying to distract from the bloody trail of death caused by guns by comparing guns to cars, or anything else, is no more than straw man arguments. None of those other items have as their basic, killing. Only guns have the designation of "Weapons". While other items can be used as weapons, that is not their primary purpose, as is with guns.

There are 7 billion people in the world.
There are 311.6 million people in the united States.
There are 600 million guns in the world.
There are 300 million guns in the United States.
The United States has less that 4.5% of the worlds population.
So why do we have or need one half of the worlds supply of guns?
How can this not be a problem?

Guns. Are. The. Problem!

Try this definition for an assault weapon:

Any semi-automatic weapon that is a military knock-off. Any civilian weapon that looks similar to the Rambo inducing fantasy, killing machine in the graphic below.

All that is necessary to turn those weapons into fully automatic weapons, for all intents and purposes, is a bump stock. Then add a one-hundred round drum. And they are perfectly legal. Rabbit hunting anyone? How can you miss?
Why would any sane civilian need one or more of these? They were designed to kill human beings and they do that with high efficiency.

Forget folding and adjustable stocks and bayonet lugs. Those are just detractions from the real problem. The problem is the Rambo and Dirty Harry mentality that populate places likes of the gungeon. Or worse yet, the public streets, with one of their sweet, semi-auto babies*, under their arm-pit. Ready to stop the next Sandy Point.

*Hand gun

Good for a bumper sticker.

Bushmaster: Cheaper than a penile implant.

Or...

Which is more intimidating? More macho?


A .223 Bushmaster. This is a military knockoff, originally designed to hunt humans. This can be easily fitted with a 100 round drum.
The main difference between this and the military version is that this not auto fire...
Unless you put a bump stock on it. Then, for all intents and purposes, it is fully automatic.
Add the 100 round drum, and well, what's this doing in civilian hands?
Do you think anyone is going to hunt rabbits with this?


A .223 hunting rifle, 5 rounds, Bolt action. Use to hunt small game. Cannot be made automatic, or even semi-auto.
Designed for the purpose of hunting small game. Rabbits, coyotes, small animal pests.

There are those that say these weapons are the same thing. They say both are hunting rifles. Why? Because they both use the same ammunition.
Really? Think about that. Are these weapons really the same?
The last time a bolt action was used in an assassination was 40 years ago. The last time a bushmaster was used for mass murder was this past week... again.

Anyone else see the problem here?

Which is more intimidating?


A .223 Bushmaster. can be easily fitted with 100 round drum. Used to hunt humans.
A military knockoff.


A .223 hunting rifle, 5 rounds, use to hunt small game.
Designed for purpose.

Anyone else see the problem here?



Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »