Turning it back on the NRA and Gun Industry: Control your own criminals!

    By erica20 on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 1:28pm |

     

    Q: "How does the gun industry know you need a gun to protect yourself from criminals?"
    A: "Because they just cashed the criminals' check!"
     
    Q: "How do you know the gun industry is still selling guns to criminals?"
    A: "Because the NRA is still buying ad time."
     
    Okay the second joke is weaker. But I think it's time to make it clear that we can stop talking about a lot of gun control right now if Americans would go to work on forcing gun manufacturers to start doing a little bit of criminal control.
     
    I suggest this because a look at gun "time to crime" statistics shows that gun manufacturers are selling at least 10% of their product every year via unscrupulous FFL dealers, pretty much straight to criminals. It is crazy to believe that the folks on the wholesale end don't know where those guns are going; and so one of the main reasons we're even talking about gun control is that manufacturers want to sell 100,000 guns a year to bad people and leave us to deal with the consequences. (Responsible gun owners oughta be hopping mad about that!)
     
    That NRA ad which literally targeted the President's children made me really angry. It's time to let the American public know, loud and clear, that the NRA and the gun industry don't care about their kids, or about the president's kids--they care about the money from the 100,000 guns (at least) that they drop into the arms of criminals every year. It's money that they shouldn't have. The gun industry knows where their guns are going--and it's time to let people know that if the industry is still making money, they're still doing it.
     
    A new frame makes for a different picture, and I think this needs to be the new frame.
     

     

    Comments

    Thanks, erica, for leading on discussions here on the gun issue (I have some catching up to do on previous threads). 

    By your next to last sentence are you suggesting the gun industry could not or would not make money absent the sale of those 100,000 guns?  Is there anything in the President's proposals today which you think addresses this issue?  Do you see significant gaps in the President's proposals, issues that could be addressed and need to be, but are not in what he is proposing?

    The circumstances that have led to this moment--where the President is entering the fray in a major way with proposals to deal with gun violence--are tragic.  And it will be tragic if Congress drops the ball entirely.  There will be compromises, for sure, but perhaps Congress can improve on the President's proposals in some ways as well.


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 2:24pm

    Hi AD, you are welcome. 

    I am not sure on the money aspect--because the research on gun sales is hard to find it is hard to know whether the industry would still be profitable without that 10%. But you also have to figure that some of the sales to law-abiding owners are triggered by fear of the criminals, so the industry is making money on both sides of the bet. Ending the stirring of that particular pot would almost certainly cut into their profits.

    I have to look at the president's proposals. So far it seems that this gun-trafficking/selling to criminals aspect is being downplayed. I almost wonder if it is going to emerge as an alternative to the AWB and stringent background checks: cutting sales to criminals is a gun law that everybody can love.....

    Except the gun manufacturers. Who hopefully will be left out in the cold lobbying for their sales figures when regular people figure out that self defense and the second amendment are pretty much just marketing devices.


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 4:49pm

    The pharmaceutical companies are making money off of sick people too.

    Snark alert

    Lead us Erica; "Down with capitalism; When do we want it, NOW"

    You want to see armed guards, go to a WTO rally.


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 2:38pm

    Hell yeah - what are there ads for in downtown Seattle? Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, big billboards that say "Have Trouble Seeing? It Might Be MS." There is big money in being sick.


    by Orion on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 4:00pm

    Oh, I was at a WTO event just last week! I was getting out of my limo and one of those armed guards winked at me. Of course I winked back! ;^)


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 4:52pm

    Resistance, thanks for finally admitting gun crazies like yourself are sick pawns of the gun industry. Our currency says 'In God We Trust' not 'In Guns We Trust'.

    I have a stuffed koala bear that is a proven, and far safer and cuddly,  alternative for preventing Doomsday Tyranny.  Thousands of them all over Australia have done the job since the gun confiscation of '96. They are sold even to tourists, and no registration, ammo or license is required.


    by NCD on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 6:38pm

    I believe you've won the internet today NCD. yes  


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 7:36pm

    I don't believe you read the whole article where the phrase  Doomsday Provision is mentioned? Or you wouldn't be taking it so lightly.

    "However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

    Frankly NCD, knowing how you see loons everywhere you go, I suspect you're where they put them?  If you find comfort with your bears, I'm glad for you.

    Maybe you can find a good jacket that will protect you and others too?  

    13 

    My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision,

    one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees.

    However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

    39

    As Blackstone describes the "natural right" of an Englishman to keep and bear arms, the arms are for personal defense as well as resistance to tyranny. ………….. A substantial part of the debate in Congress on the Fourteenth Amendment was its necessity to enable blacks to protect themselves from White terrorism and tyranny in the South.53 Private terrorist organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, were abetted by southern state governments' refusal to protect black citizens, and the violence of such groups could only be realistically resisted with private firearms. When the state itself abets organized terrorism, the right of the people to keep and bear arms against a tyrant becomes inseparable from the right to self-defense.

    http://dagblog.com/link/gun-nuts-disarming-discourse-15992#comment-173204


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 8:09pm

    I think you should continue to  rant about your great need for gunz, I think your house must be broken into every day or something with the so many times you've posted about the need to protect your house.  You should continue to write about how this oppressive, communist, fascist, corporatist, illegal, unconstitutionally acting gubmint is coming for your gunz.  And you definitely should keep posing about how how we need to defend ourselves from our government, which in Texas I presume has landed troops and are walking the streets oppressing Texans and confiscating their guns. And most definitely continue to post a small portion of the Second Amendment, always leaving out the "well regulated militia" provision, to make the majority of your points, because frankly, you and others like you are demonstrating in explicit detail why we need to implement what Australia did in 1996.  I know this won't happen, because as Americans we are too belligerent and caught up in our own mythology of the wild west and how great things were when you could just shoot a man dead on the street for stealing your pencil to enact legislation that would help make America a little bit safer.

    But it is easy to go to the interwebz and troll right? Because frankly Resistance, I can't tell if you are just a talented but bizarre satirist exposing crazy right wing ideological paranoia or if you really believe all the inanities you post. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 8:47pm

    TM ...What good is a debate of the issues, if the minority position is not heard? 

    Or ignored, leading to majority rule trampling on the individual rights of others.

    I believe this Nation would still be under the condition of slavery, but for those who asked, 'What about the minorities, shouldn't we consider their point of view"? 

    I found this link very enlightening, but also complex, I hope you and others look

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


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 10:06pm

    Looking at the current landscape, I am more in fear of my neighbors who have stockpiled weapons than I am of government. Trayvon Martin was not killed by the government.Jordan Davis was not murdered by the government. Both innocent teens were killed by fear-filled, self-appointed law enforcers who should have not been allowed near a gun. Scared people with guns represent a clear and present danger.

    Americans have a right to bear arms. Background checks are not an over-reach. Allowing government funding to support research into the impact of gun violence is not an over-reach. Research on violent video games is not an over-reach.

    A government over-reach "Stop and Frisk" can be stopped by citizen action. Wackadoo citizens with guns do not honor controls. Zimmerman invaded Trayvon's space. I fear armed, violent citizens much more than the government when it comes to gun violence in the US.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 9:38pm

    Sh.. Happens?


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 10:26pm

    Why do you keep quoting the dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as if it is some kind of holy writ? Hot tip: dissent = opinions in agreement with the losing side. And even some of your comrades don't think the case is a good one to play with.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 10:50pm

    AA, As I pointed out before, a dissenting view is not lacking well-reasoned thoughts.

    A case in point: The Taney Court in the Dred Scott case prevailed, but it was wrong

    (But I had already stated that before, but I cant keep up with what you or anybody else reads, before they shoot off responses)

    The link you so proudly wave as dispositive proof; proves nothing more than you would accept someone else’s opinion, who flat out tells us

    I've tried to formulate an opinion of my own on this effort vying for USSC cert.
    The result? I could not. I quickly realized that I am not qualified to determine the merits (or lack thereof) of this case.

    Not to worry author, you did find someone who swallowed the BS

    AA There is nothing to suggest that the dissenting Judges thought the entire case had merit. They may have found in favor of some points and rejected others.

    I really don’t care, the points in the dissent were well reasoned and I suspect a Higher Court, would have agreed with some of the points in the dissent.

    I do have other more recent case history that I have been reading and I could provide, but personally I don't care to do all the work for you.  So either you do your own homework about recent cases 2nd Amendment cases before the High Court, or you’ll wait till I have the time.

    It is becoming more apparent, that some at Dagblog, aren’t worth the effort and that it is a waste of time to do the research; only to have the pearls of knowledge that I had wished to impart;  would only to be trampled by some, who wish to remain uneducated.


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 1:02am

    I find it striking that roughly half of the president's executive orders involve clearing away obstacles the gun lobby has erected to either effective background checks or solving gun crimes after the fact.

    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obamas-23-planned-executive-...

    9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

    Just for example, isn't that a no-brainer? No, according to RNC chairman Reince Priebus, it's part of an elaborate presidential power grab.

    These people are dinosaurs. Time for them to go extinct.

     


    by acanuck on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 2:56pm

    What do you have against dinosaurs?


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 4:40pm

    Well, you don't need to have anything against dinasaurs, because they are extinct.  Why are they extinct?  Because their size and appetites for power exceeded their ability to satiate themselves.  They died from the inability to satisfy their own gluttony.

     

    Now, I know there are a few dinosaurs trying despe:rately trying to make a come-back:

     

    Tyrannasauras Ignoramus:  A bizarre species that ignores reality and also pretends that a document written at a time when guns had to be loaded slowly and thoughtfully, was meant to include weapons that the most brilliant of the signers could not have envisioned.  --  In other words, people like you, Resistance.

    Scareidopulus of the Governmentus:  A species that cannot possibly survive because its entire reason for living assumes that the 2nd Ammendment (which talks about a WELL REGULATED MILITIA) is all about being able to FIGHT OFF THE GOVERNMENT (without any historical understanding that it is about KING GEORGE rather than a duly elected government).  This species is especially challenged mentally because the very Ammendment that they cite drives them into stroke territory whenever any of the WELL REGULATED ISSUES COME UP.  And MILITIA?  OOOOH!  That must mean the GOVERNMENT, which suddenly becomes the reason they need to be armed in the first place.  The good news:  They will probably kill each other just out of not knowing what else to do.

    Brontosaurus Paranoidas:  A self-defeating species that fears everything and blames the government (which is, after all, elected by the people in this country) for all of their irrational cowardly bed-wetting scariness.  -- in other words, people like you, Resistance.

    Psychosaurus Protectedaurus:  A sick, pathetic, and sad bunch of bipeds that are protected by other "auruses" by

    1) The sick members of the above species who have been successfully bullied into digging their own personal bomb shelters (except that THESE bomb shelters bomb other people, including anyone standing in their way while waiting to buy a Heath Bar, for example)

    2)  The NRA, which has abandoned its original and honorable intent, which was to promote gun safety and has changed to making money for gun manufacturers.

     

    It is my most deeply held hope that you and your ilk will lose, and fewer people will die.  It is almost comical that you are in the same group that supposedly honors life by opposing choice.  But then, that brings me to the species that grows daily:

     

    Hippocryticus Republicanicus.  They are dying a natural death from a pure inability to make any sense out of their hateful and inconsistent stances.

     


    by CVille Dem on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 8:36pm

    CVille ; How convenient that you papered over the comment

    These people are dinosaurs. Time for them to go extinct.

    If I were a dinosaur, it would be clear that people like acanuck and you would have us in your sights  "Time for extinction"   Whooo hoo shoot them dinosaurs, send them back to their creator"

    Alrighty then, time for another group to go extinct ;Whooo hooo isn't this fun getting rid of groups we don't like. 

    I do have to give you some credit for your imagination though, except I still feel threatened.


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 9:08pm

    It is striking. I am not sure yet about the implications. Time to do some reading....


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 4:54pm

    Exactly right acanuck. The sooner they go extinct the better off America will be in the long run. I sometimes can't believe how unbelievably absurd we are as a nation when it comes to the issue of firearms. Jeebus, it is embarrassing at times to be an American. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 7:43pm

    HAHAHHAAHAHAHAH

    Okay, I hereby render unto Erica the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site; given to all of her from all of me.

    Either joke works for me! hahaah


    by Richard Day on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 3:30pm

    Thank you DD!


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 7:49pm

    This whole debate is way simpler than people make it. Seriously.

    A friend of mine posted a bunch of statistics about car accidents and said "we need car control." It's easier to get a gun than it is to get a car. For "background checks" to pop up in the debate shows how absurd we are - we should have passed that plateau long ago.


    by Orion on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 7:11pm

    We need car control.

    We have had attempts at car control for six or seven decades.

    Hell we were killing 50,000 Americans every damn year since I was born until Carter showed up and the numbers are down; I mean we have double the population since then and I believe we are now losing 30,000 people a year.

    That is one hell of a difference statistically anyway.

    When you get a DUI--which affects 33,000 folks a year IN THIS STATE ALONE--you cannot drive for awhile! You cannot get insurance without some great increase in premiums. If you drive without your license you are in deep deep.....

    Well, guns should not be in the custody of those with DUI's let alone sexual predators or felons or a number of other people.

    But SC officials can figure out if someone owns a car whether or not the car was purchased in SC or Minnesota!

    And if I take a car to SC I just cannot drive around without getting proper registration in SC after some period of time.

    You should have to get a license to get a gun.

    You should have to get a renewal on that license to get a gun.

    You should have to get a new license if you take that gun to another state.

    You should lose your right to a gun if you are convicted of having a DUI or you have been found guilty of beating your wife or partner or if you plead insanity for some felony you have been accused of or if you have not paid your taxes or....

    Yes.

    But the morons would tell you that owning an automobile is not a right; but owning a gun is a right.

    Well then take another look at this right and see that a government cannot take away your right to a car without due process of law:

     

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]
     

    [edit]


    by Richard Day on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 7:30pm

    nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

    The NRA agrees, The accused must have a due process hearing and if the accused is guilty as charged, then their rights are suspended or taken away,  the Second Amendment no longer guarantees to them the rights that lawful gun owners have as a protection. 


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 8:21pm

    Resistance, I have had it.

    And that is okay.

    I do not have the answers to all things.

    But you have taken this too too far.

    People who have been adjudicated as drunk or under the influence of alcohol or a number of other substances should not be able to have guns.

    Does this mean that they should never have guns again?

    No. But these people have been adjudicated to have not been mentally healthy--so to speak.

    And men who beat their wives and have been adjudicated as such should not have any access whatsoever to guns.

    And people who have threatened the President of the United States of America should not have access to guns.

    And people who have advocated the violent over throw of the Government of the United States of America should not have guns.

    And people who have advocated the deaths of innocents in schools around this nation should not have access to guns.

    And people who have advocated the deaths of worshippers should not have guns.

    And people who have called for the deaths of governmental leaders--duly elected--should not have guns.

    And people who have been convicted of felonies should not have guns.

    And I could go on and on which I usually do anyways but...there are people who believe they are members of a well regulated militia should not be unregulated.

    I am sick and tired of this.

    And I am merely a lowly citizen of the United States of America.

    I claim no elected status.

    I have earned no one's admiration for past deeds.

    I am simply stating deductive facts.

    I can tell you that if a mother has a military weapon in her possession and she knows that her son has gone out of his mind....that mother has a duty to get rid of that firearm.

    I can tell you, in my opinion, that it is treason to state that I know better than my elected government and that I have no rights with regard to advocating the violent overthrow of the United States Government.

    I could go on for another thousand pages, which you have already read, and demonstrate many other contexts within which a society must set down rules for civility and civility's sake.

    You have gone too far on this issue my friend.

    I am extremely sorry if I have offended you, but you have gone too far.

    Babies were killed in Kindergarten.

    Innocent folks watching a movie were mowed down like grass under some super lawn mower.

    Kids seeking knowledge have been slaughtered for their goals; their simple goals to learn something in this chaotic universe.

    Shoppers have been gunned down whilst they led their families to simple rides and their quest for IPODS.

    Tiny tots standing on the street simply attempting to view the proceedings on their own goddamn streets have been struck down by competing gangs attempting to breed mahem.

    There is no logic to these deaths.

    And what if the government(s) go too far?

    Do we arm up and ammo up and attempt to defend ourselves from a government with nuclear weapons?

    THIS TYPE OF THOUGHT HAS TO BE STOPPED.

    I dunno, that is all I got.

    I JUST WILL NOT COUNTENANCE THE SLAYING OF BABIES IN KINDERGARTEN ON THE BASIS OF SOME THEORY!

    THE END

    except for


    by Richard Day on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 8:58pm

    I believe you have mistaken my position.

    Everyone of those actions such as wife beater or drunk drivers or people who threaten others etc. should be dragged before a court if necessary and the accused should be able to defend themselves and their behavior, instead of being arbitrarily deprived of their rights.

    Law abiding citizens should not be blamed, or crucified.

    I hope we haven't reached that point yet?

    But I have been keen to your articles about the Fascist pigs, and why should we be victims to be herded to the slaughter.

    I dont understand you my friend; why does or should the left want to disarm; knowing the Fascists wont? 


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 9:30pm

    Resistance, once again. Law-abiding citizens will not be disarmed. And anybody who takes care with their guns will not be required to do anything different except wait for a background check to get a new one.

    Please name one single idea on the president's table right now that will significantly change how a current  responsible, law-abiding gun owner goes about his or her business, especially with regard to guns currently in his or her possession. (Other, possibly, than having to trade in high-capacity magazines eventually for low-capacity ones.)

    And don't give me that slippedy-slidey slope cold dead hand apocalypse business. Name one single practical thing that is likely to change for one single gun owner between now and the time we'll all have to protect ourselves from whatever.

     


    by erica20 on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:57am

    Law-abiding citizens will not be disarmed

    NOT YET,  but no guarantee tomorrow

    Please name one single idea on the president's table right now that will significantly change how a current responsible, law-abiding gun owner goes about his or her business.

    No Erica, why don’t you tell me, other than the mental health issue or the NRA’s suggestion, that the government needs to enforce the laws already on the books, how many of the President’s offers on the table, will positively save lives other than harass law abiding citizens?

    I don’t know if you saw the 1/15/13 PBS,  About Police officers, who know a thing or two about self-defense and what guns they prefer and how many bullets it takes to stop a criminal bent on doing harm.  

    Or this  PBS 1/16/13

    JUDY WOODRUFF: But you're not saying there's -- couldn't reasonable people sit down at the table and come up with a solution that would satisfy you, your organization and would satisfy those who say, we have got to make it safer?

    DAVID KEENE: That's why we went to the meeting with Vice President Biden.

    But, you know, before that meeting, the vice president himself and those speaking for him said, we're open-minded. We're going to discuss this. We got to the meeting.

    And one of the first things he said was, the president and I have strong feelings about firearms, and nobody is going to change our mind on that. We're going to pursue what we want to pursue.

    Fine. They had the meeting, so they could say, oh, and we talked to the NRA.

    .........

    DAVID KEENE: And the other thing -- let me say one other thing. In the last year, 77,000 people who were on the prohibited list tried to buy firearms. That, in itself, is a crime. You know how many have been prosecuted? Seventy.

    When that was raised at the meeting, the attorney general said, well, we don't have the resources and the time to be going after those people.

    DAVID KEENE Those people are the potential criminals whom we're trying to keep guns out of the hands of, but the government doesn't have time to do anything about them. They do have time to try and prohibit legitimate citizens from owning firearms.

    I'm confident that the judgment of the American people is going to be as it was before.

    And that is that Second Amendment rights should be protected. Criminals should be prosecuted. And we should strengthen the ways we keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business buying them.

     

    Watch NRA President Rejects White House Gun Control Approach on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

     

    MR ATTORNEY GENERAL, YOU BETTER FIND THE TIME AND THE RESOURCES, TO  PROTECT OUR MOST VALUABLE ASSET

    ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS,   MR HOLDER

    QUIT HARASSING  LAW ABIDING CITIZENS


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 1:47am

    Confused what our "most valuable asset" is - however

    Almost no one went to jail for financial meltdown 2008 or mortgage theft 2010, certainly not serious banksters.

    Hong Kong-Shanghai bank (HSBC) was left off the hook for letting drug lords and terrorists smuggle hundreds of millions through them, while a woman was convicted of sending about $1200 to a Palestinian. 

    Only a small businesswoman got punished for robo-signing, not any of the banks who ordered all the illegally repossessed mortgages.

    So what are you expecting?


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 7:16pm

    I guess it proofs "We" aren't high enough on the priority list of, most valued? 


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 7:28pm

    Erica asked you a clear question that goes to the heart of your claims that any restriction on guns is only a ruse for the eventual complete disarming of the population. In response, you just say you won't answer it and change the subject.

    You have yet to defend this particular idea regarding the futility of compromise but only assert it. You can quote Blackstone but can't say for yourself how much power is needed to avoid having your rights "infringed." It is odd to have someone claim an absolute right to something and not be able to say what that means right now in real time.

    In his statement, David Keene also excludes any discussion of how much force would represent compliance with the Second amendment. It is a logical fallacy to answer a challenge about what would represent a sufficient level of personally owned deadly force with a complaint that the government is doing a lousy job of enforcing laws already on the books. It makes the fallacy extra special when one considers that the NRA has not exactly signed on to help make sure those laws functioned well.

    The deeper problem with your thesis that any discussion of limits represents a cancelation of the Second Amendment is that the clopping of the four horsemen you fear to hear has already happened. DC vs. Heller has already made the deal you don't want to consider. The decision stopped outright prohibition of ownership in exchange for a flexible anticipation of laws restricting who is allowed to own what. Your link to Klukowski on the "disarming gun nut thread" was a helpful comment proving that there are Constitutionalist "originalist" who feel that Scalia sold them out by making that exchange. By your measure, that says any concession is a complete defeat, your position is toast.

     


    by moat on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 8:13pm

    Hey moat, knowing you're a philosphy peep, an aside (or maybe not totally aside.) I've never been a fan of Foucault, but I just happened across this interview with him, and I think his answer to the first question there was mighty fine,  maybe like an epiphany. enlightened


    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:04pm

    Foucault is great because he insists on only having the problems he actually has. He challenges the reader to engage with his ideas with the expectation that we will do the same on our part. He wants us to be like him.

    I appreciate your link to the interview because I had not seen it before. I have lately been thinking a lot about a dynamic he expressed so well therein:

    "Questions and answers depend on a game — a game that is at once pleasant and difficult — in which each of the two partners takes pains to use only the rights given him by the other and by the accepted form of dialogue."

     

     


    by moat on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:39pm

    That Foucault was pretty cool.

    Or...was he?


    by erica20 on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 12:16am

    Personally, I'm a big fan of his pendulum. (Yeah, I know.)


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 01/20/2013 - 12:11pm

       I haven't read him, but I will.


    by Aaron Carine on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 7:48am

    I have mentioned a few times Congress's complicity in preventing law enforcement (specifically the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) from doing its job. On last night's Daily Show, Jon Stewart did a masterful job of dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Better and more succinct than anything I've seen from the "legitimate" news media. Stewart zeroed in on the hypocrisy of one Republican: former representative Todd Tiahrt of Kansas:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-nra-atf-gun-control-obama-2013-1

    I urge everyone to watch the Daily Show segment. Very funny, in a jaw-dropping kind of way. And here's more on the pernicious Tiahrt Amendments:

    http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml

     


    by acanuck on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:28am

    TPM links to yesterday's show: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/jon-stewart-nra-ad.php?ref=fp...


    by acanuck on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:47am

    Advice from Australia:

    I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.
    By JOHN HOWARD
    Op-Ed Contributor, New York Times, Published: January 16/17, 2013

    SYDNEY, Australia....


    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 3:27pm

    Are you serious AA

    Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control.

    Gezz folks, we told you the tyrant King George would have been better than your Democracy.


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 3:43pm

    I am not John Howard and he is not me.

    I just thought Erica might like to read this and I also suspect she might have a more nuanced reading of the political advice in it.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 4:04pm

    And your drama queen act of the one true preacher of the one right true reading of 2nd Amendment at Dagblog is growing quite tiresome, especially because all the arguments have been been gone over a gazillion times before with much greater gravitas and quality elsewhere. I'll wait for the Supremes now (or at very minimum, a well done debate between consitutional law experts,) had enough, very tiresome, the same thing over and over and over, and not even done well at all with lots of faulty arguments not even supportive of your own points, mixed in with agitprop and hysteria and strange interpretations of and revisions of history.

    Hope that you will eventually move on to at least one more topic or even just mix it up a little with other details on the topic of guns.

    I just don't feel it's a wise use of my time to engage with you on it anymore, because it's a "been there, done that,"  because it's not in the least a challenge to my thinking. because all you offer is the same thing over and over.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 4:28pm

    Does that mean you don't love me anymore?

    You should stick with what you really know.

    As for the gun issue and our other rights, I am passionate about our Constitution, watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing, and imploring the people to closely guard against those, who wish to undermine our safeguards.

    The question is AA, why aren't  you?  

    If drama queen is the name you give for this heartfelt appreciation, so be it.


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 4:50pm

    Resistance, More than one person here has asked you to stop nursing this argument.  This is trolling and we won't tolerate it. 


    by Ramona on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 5:51pm

    I have no idea nor do I care to count, how many discussions on his site alone, on the gun issue and it is now trolling to respond to others insults?

    Whatever Ramona.

    I guess I've unknowingly run afoul again.

    Please excuse my opiniated intrusion. 


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 7:20pm

    You're entitled to your opinions but when you use comment after comment to say the same things over and over again in order to instigate a response so that you can say the same things over and over again, that's trolling.

    I wish people (including me) wouldn't respond to trolling, but many of us do and when it threatens to take over someone else's thread, we have to put a stop to it as a courtesy to the original poster.

    I'm sure you can understand that.


    by Ramona on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 7:53pm

    I didn't, but I do now. There are some here at dagblog who delight, in twisting my words and I try to dispel the accusations.

    If the thread suggests, that people who take my position are whack jobs or worse; should I laugh, let the stereotype go unanswered?  

    I am appreciative that Peracles did point out, what I couldn't find the words to say, about some of the underhanded insults, directed at me.

    In some cases some readers appear as though, they didn't read my prior responses and asking me to clarify what I meant, So I would.

    Was this questioning or asking for a reclarification a trap or a sincere request ?   

    I have only just recently started to see how folks, initiate strawman arguments to rile me. So I try to rephrase my comment in the following opportunity.

    But that's  okay Ramona, I understand you may be pressured to silence me, as you said others have made mention.

    Just moments ago I was attempting to find out more, about what is trolling. It appears there are many ways, and I can assure you it was never my intent.

    But I am human, and it does hurt when others are so open about their displeasure at my opinion. and they taking every opportunity, to file a complaint, as a means to silence me. "Go away, we don't like your kind"

    So again Ramona;  I'm sorry


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 8:29pm

    Nobody likes trolls.  I'm sure that wasn't your intent, so thank you for understanding.


    by Ramona on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 9:26pm

    I want to make it clear that I didn't "file a complaint." Rather, I was directly addressing you about it and only you. And I was offering a critical opinion, as a reader of your comments, when this reader, and only this reader, finds the extreme polemics game you like starts to get extremely tiresome. Especially when it's the same exact point done in inumerable variations over a period of weeks.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 9:33pm

    I am a student of the best political advisors; doing what Carville and Begala did: Stay on message.


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:01pm

    No, Resistance, I'm under no pressure to silence you.  Nobody has asked me to talk to you about trolling.  Strictly my own decision based on what I'm seeing here.

    I've had this funny bit on trolling from Urban Dictionary in my files for a while now.  Not meant to be taken personally, and I don't mean it that way, but it is what it is. 

    Trolling, that is.


    by Ramona on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 9:55pm

    I will review the information Ramona. Thank you.


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:05pm

    Good definition - could be useful if applied across the board.

    BTW - did you watch the video at that link? 


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 3:22am

    Only the first few seconds.  Too stupid.


    by Ramona on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 8:31am

    Distasteful


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 9:48am

    Resistance, prolific commenter, but who, in over 2 years has never posted a blog of his own:

    "But that's  okay Ramona, I understand you may be pressured to silence me, as you said others have made mention."

    When you never, ever, write a blog of your own? Who is silencing who?

    You 'react' to the posts of others. Often negatively, often in what could be considered off topic or somewhat irrational fashion. For instance, one example:

    Your self identification with Australian aborigines, in your justification for guns.  I had commented that Australia had confiscated 700,000 guns in 1996 after a massacre, and haven't had one since. The Australian Prime Minister at the time wrote an Op Ed in the NYT saying Obama should do something similar in America.

    Your argument was that the aborigines centuries ago had no guns, noting a total absence of any aboriginal gun industry 250 years ago. Presumably postulating that the history of that native group would have been improved if they had one.

    This had nothing to do with contemporary US moves towards increasing rules on gun safety. You did not even try to address the paradox that your so-called Second Amendment 'Doomsday Tyranny' has not arisen in modern day Australia after their clamp down on gun possession.

    Could it be that guns might not be involved in ensuring good government?

    If not true, write your own blog on it, and work in the history of aborigines if you wish. You might also cover, if guns assure freedom and good government, what point is served by the rest of the US Constitution, who needs it?

    Those who believe and follow you may look forward to you actually coming out of your commenting closet and presenting your beliefs in a full and clear manner. I doubt the management will stop you. Your blogs will be easily accessible on your now blank blog page. You can then assure yourself that no one is 'silencing you'.

    If you are afraid or unwilling to blog, at least do a blog telling us why.

    You are courageous enough to imagine and prepare for participation in the overthrow a national dictatorship with your gun. Would a man of such guts and fortitude lack the resolve to write his own blog?? The proof will be in the blog.


    by NCD on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 8:24pm

    TROLL ALERT, Ramona, I am sure glad you provided me information about how to identify a TROLL.


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 9:28pm

    I repeat my previous request that you post your own statement and defend it as such.

     


    by moat on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 8:32pm

    .


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:40pm

    Reply withdrawn because comment was withdrawn.


    by moat on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:47pm

    That, at least, is a valid point.


    by acanuck on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:49pm

    Say what? I disagree. I think.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 3:11am

    Ok everyone, thank you for all your thoughts. Let's put this thread to bed for the time being if that's ok; we can all take a deep cleansing breath and come back to it tomorrow. It's hard work, but we're not shirkers!

    Resistance, I still would like you to answer my question (I did notice your clever evasion!) and I will take a shot at answering yours.

    Tomorrow, let's look at trying to find common ground as we discuss what we need to do to enforce the existing laws in ways that will make a difference. In other words, let's get serious about Time to Crime. John Stewart did do a nice job last night explaining the players and in combination with the Keene interview it gives us some facts to look at.

    In service of the discussion, I watched Joe Biden's entire speech to the mayors explaining the President's plans this afternoon, and I tell you what--that Joe can ramble. I'd suggest scanning the transcript for the high spots rather than watching the whole thing.

    If you haven't already, it's worth taking a look at tracetheguns.org--it is a small site with only 2 reports on it but just looking at the interactive graphic is fascinating.

    I still believe strongly that the way to handle the gun issue with minimal inconvenience to actual citizens is to force the gun industry to stop selling guns to criminals. Let's discuss!

    G'Night.


    by erica20 on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 12:10am

    Resistance, I still would like you to answer my question (I did notice your clever evasion!) and I will take a shot at answering yours

    Erica, it isn’t that I don’t want to answer your question; it’s just that I have to be careful about how I respond and the follow up questions that are sure to follow

    I believe the "Right to Bear arms is not to be infringed"  just as it says. I don’t want to get into the absurd questions or what ifs

    Recently I noticed, especially after the National debate began about gun control and this Yeager fellow;  

    A question was asked by a reader/commenter, who twisted my words, about whether I was suggesting, that I was threatening Congress, because I had suggested that our forefathers who feared tyranny, thought the People should have the means, to protect themselves from it.

    I was about to shut down my computer for the night, because it gets slow if I don’t; when a message from Microsoft came across my screen, I needed to upgrade for security reasons, so I allowed the work to be done. I’d seen these messages before.

    Except this time, I was paying more than the usual attention and in a flash; a file named Perfidy was installed.

    I asked others, if they had heard of this program before and no one in the group had heard of it.  

    I am familiar with the word in another context though

     per·fi·dy  Noun Deceitfulness; untrustworthiness. Synonyms treachery - treason - betrayal – disloyalty

    So when some here, try to play their little T-rolling games, trying to entrap me, with gotcha questions, I’m not so sure anymore, that Big Brother isn’t peering in?

    “Are you really threatening Congress”? As the jerk, reader/ commenter implied, when my words were twisted. Bringing heat upon me for reading and promoting what the forefathers wrote?

    I guess that’s one way to stifle dissent. It works well in Russia.

    G night


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 5:36am

    In cyberworld, perfidy refers to malicious software disguised as ordinary software. (Just as in war, perfidy is the term for military types furthering their ends by pretending to be civilian.)

    So you may have installed an anti-perfidy file, or if the message was not a real message from Microsoft, then you may have inadvertently installed a perfidious file. (But I think a truly perfidious file would defeat its own purpose by labeling itself as such.)

    ***

     


    by erica20 on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 11:47am

    Nah, just a Shakespeare bot: "By this light, a most perfidious and drunken monster..." 

    "Though those that are betray'd Do feel the treason sharply, yet the traitor Stands in worse case of woe".

    Should lay off the hot toddies before bed.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 2:12pm

    Unless the contempt for those, who are about to be victimized, is so great.

    The arrogant usurpers of privacy, saying "The dummies wouldn't know, if it was right in front of their faces, they're being spied upon"

    Information Awareness Office - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Sean McGahan, of Northeastern University said the following in his study of SSNA:

    The purpose of the SSNA algorithms program is to extend techniques of social network analysis to assist with distinguishing potential terrorist cells from legitimate groups of people ... In order to be successful SSNA will require information on the social interactions of the majority of people around the globe. Since the Defense Department cannot easily distinguish between peaceful citizens and terrorists, it will be necessary for them to gather data on innocent civilians as well as on potential terrorists.—Sean McGahan[13]


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 9:51pm

    Some folks feel that "WE" the people don't have a say in the judiciary's interpretation of the Constitution;

    I disagree, The Justices know the peoples sentiments, unless the people remain silent.

    A Candid Conversation With Sandra Day O'Connor: 'I Can Still Make

    In your 25 years on the court, did you ever hear justices talk about the politics of a problem rather than the merits of the case?
    SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR: I’m sure that from time to time justices would say to each other,

    “Gosh, this is a case that’s going to get members of the public stirred up.” I mean, you’re not an idiot."

     

    PARADE: I was stunned by a recent survey that showed the approval rating for Supreme Court justices had fallen to 44 percent, down from 66 percent in the late ’80s.
    SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR: Yes. I thought that was very disturbing. I think Bush v. Gore may have been a turning point. It was seen by the public as political.

    [The case] had to be resolved somehow. But it didn’t help the image of the court any.

    $$$$$$$$$

    It was political, and unless a strong message is sent to them and our representatives by WE the People, we would no longer be active participants in our destiny.

    We the people don’t have to sit idly by, waiting for the Gods (The Supreme Judiciary) to dictate, we don’t have to be uniformed bystanders.


    by Resistance on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 8:26pm

    One example of one stolen gun.

    Originally purchased at a gun fair for this NC grandma for protection after she and her husband were mugged in a parking lot in 2003:

    Gun disappeared from between her car seats after a car wash in 2008 (it was loaded, she always kept it loaded)

    Gun made its way to NYC.

    At the beginning of this month, the gun was used to shoot a cop in the Bronx during an armed robbery of a car dealership (in the seedy Bronx car shop strip where I used to get my car fixed, and where BTW,  I never felt threatened by violence.)

     


    by artappraiser on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 11:17pm

    Do you know AA;  If  Grandma reported the stolen gun immediately?

    Maybe the people who cleaned her car were all ex- felons?

    I wish they could find the person who stole the gun, and make that person or persons  an accessory to attempted murder.

    Convict him/her with the rest of them that used a gun in the commission of a crime.

    We're sick of this crap, punish the criminals.


    by Resistance on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 11:58pm

    Do you know AA;  If  Grandma reported the stolen gun immediately?

    All I know is in the article, and I know the article's author could not know she was the original owner unless the serial number is on record somewhere with her name, either from a theft report or a registration of some other kind.

    Maybe the people who cleaned her car were all ex- felons?

    I don't understand your concern with possible ex-felons here, because ex-felons don't even need to steal a gun if they want one for their own use, they can currently buy firearms at gun shows and in private sales of unstolen guns, as there are no background checks in either case. And my understanding from your commenting here is that you think that the status quo on guns laws is just fine.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 4:15pm

    Latest Comments