HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » gtar100 » Journal
Page: 1

gtar100

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Colorado
Home country: US
Current location: Westminster/Denver
Member since: Mon Aug 4, 2003, 04:22 PM
Number of posts: 3,229

Journal Archives

Imagine if our countries invested in technology like that as much as they invest in

military hardware. We would be light years ahead as a planet from where we are today. The only thing that's stopping us? Capitalists who think it's okay to manipulate people and economies for their own personal gain and who have no regard for all the people that are hurt and repressed by their selfish actions.

Regarding the politics of this recall, I think the issue is more complex than two reps getting their

comeuppance because they had the gall to stand up against the gun lobby. This article in Salon I think explains it well:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/12/colorado_proves_politicians_cant_fear_gun_reform/

In brief:

Despite the recalls being anomalously low-turnout affairs, the national media helped the gun lobby deliver a frightening message to politicians: Vote for modest gun control and face political death.

For all that reductionism, though, there are more nuanced lessons from these elections.

First and foremost, with statewide polls showing that most Coloradans support modest gun control and opposed the recall campaigns, the elections prove that in low-turnout situations, a relatively small group of pro-gun voters can still win the day.

Additionally, with gun extremists issuing threats of violence against pro-gun-control legislators, Colorado Democrats stopped explaining why their gun legislation was so necessary. In light of that, the election results are a reminder that when politicians donít stay on the message offensive, they quickly find themselves on the electoral defensive. This is especially the case when, as a Pew survey documented, voters who oppose gun control tend to be more motivated single-issue voters than those who support gun control.


Do gun owners really resort to threats of violence against pro-gun-control legislators?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/worst-regards-colorado-democrat-lawmakers-threats-gun-control_n_3874035.html

How is that wanting a reasonable debate? Both sides have extremists, but only one has guns to back up the violent threats.

It would seem that both sides of this issue would agree that we don't want innocent people getting killed. So let's take a step back and get away from the rhetorical arguments on both sides and figure out a way to stop it. Remember, not everyone wants to own a gun, myself included, so I would reject out of hand any proposal to require gun ownership as a way to stop violent crime (which to me is a ridiculous argument).

This is the first I've heard of gun owners wanting changes in laws for their benefit.

There are already laws that limit weapons ownership - the obvious being nuclear weapons, missiles, and other heavy artillery reserved for the military. In exchange for universal background checks, mag limits, and restrictions on convicted domestic abusers owning firearms (these are the restrictions the Colorado representatives supported that got them canned), what do you think is reasonable?

Your fear of confiscation is not really reasonable given that it's not ever been brought up for serious discussion on a bill. Sure there are people who would love to see all guns confiscated from owners but since when did the extremes of an issue become the starting point of coming up with solutions to a problem. It seems to me that if there were sensible measures in place to keep guns out of the hands of people we *know* should not have them - convicted violent criminals, domestic abusers, mentally incompetent, etc. - then there would be far less outcry about the ease of access to firearms. It would protect against any movement to confiscate all guns (of which there is none - repeat, there is no movement to confiscate all guns from lawful gun owners).

So what is it you want that you do not have now that you would like to get in exchange for things such as universal background checks, mag limits, and restrictions on gun ownership for those reasons mentioned above?

It all comes as a package. Republicans do not support any of those issues. They are all about the

money. Hallelujah the guns are safe from libruls but it's not the only issue on the table and probably the one that will least effect our standard of living *and* our freedoms. Republicans will fight against any and all legislation to curb pollution in any form, they will support any efforts by the oil and gas industry to frack wherever they want and completely dismiss out of hand any and all environmental studies, they will defund public education at the drop of a hat, they will do anything their highest bidder wants, and the last thing they will do is represent the interests of people.

So you saved yourself from the inconvenience of gun registration, background checks, and safety classes. But now you get representation for the real purpose republicans have in mind... full corporate control over all issues. Profits before people every time. That is the hallmark of republican representation.

The same can be said for your home. Passwords are just locks on doors.

Until a better system or method can be implemented with the same level of convenience as usernames and passwords, we are stuck with them. In the meantime, we use them to stop most crimes of opportunity. But our sense of security that allows us to function normally in this world still requires us to trust each other to a certain degree. Your only other option is to give in to fear and paranoia.

Missed it by that much |.|

Being wealthy doesn't automatically exclude one from being a citizen. Taibi is referring to an attitude that many of the 1% feel no obligation to the countries in which they live - let alone the world in which they live. Is that the point of humanity? To create the king or queen bee while the rest serve their needs or drown in poverty? Or is it to have a democracy in which the majority can find a place in which the needs of the community are considered important along side the needs of the individual? Or is it something else? It isn't wealth that determines what ideology one should follow. That's a matter of personal integrity. It seems that Taibi is pointing out a host of reprobates currently running rather large corporate empires that feel they can do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences that ripple out from their privileged position. That's not a consequence of wealth but a consequence of low character.
Go to Page: 1