Random Political Thoughts

[PB the Deplorable]

... I'm guessing you're not including the people on Coast gab who listen to GN as trailer trash?....Or are you?

2 separate categories - those who don't have computers and live in trailer parks (or sound like it when they call)  that listen to the show, and those who either post here or haven't found this site yet who listen to the show.  Sometimes I wonder which group is larger.

[PB the Deplorable]

P*B are we differentiating between national gun registration and universal background checks?

I'm annoyed in general when politicians run around with 'solutions' that don't solve anything, but do end up either costing us more money, or creating more rules that waste our time, or - this time in the case of a national gun registration or database - encroach a little bit more on our Liberty. 

And again, without actually solving anything.  Sarbanes-Oxley comes to mind.

[BobGrau]

A serious question: how many people are employed in the states manufacturing and marketing firearms? What kind of impact would an outright ban have on the economy?
Ok, that's two questions. But you see where I'm going with this. I can't imagine 'them' ever 'taking our guns away' - there's just too much money involved.

[McPhallus]

A serious question: how many people are employed in the states manufacturing and marketing firearms? What kind of impact would an outright ban have on the economy?
Ok, that's two questions. But you see where I'm going with this. I can't imagine 'them' ever 'taking our guns away' - there's just too much money involved.

But it's way more than just economic: it really is cultural at a deep level.  If there were ever a ban on manufacturing new guns, I can't imagine what that would do to the value of existing guns.

[Pragmier]

I don't understand the opposition to expanding background checks. If they're irrelevant, then it follows we'd be better off with no checks at all. 

[Juan]

The proposed universal background check bill is supposed to contain a provision that would allow doctors of any kind, not psychiatrists, to report someone as mentally ill and have them placed on the do not sell list.  The person is not notified and has no provision of appeal.  Thus, no due process. 

Some say it also includes provisions that would require someone loaning a gun to a friend or relative at a range to have a background check, too. 

That's the trouble with these bastards in Congress.  The cook up a bill that most sane people would agree with, title it as such, then include off the wall things that the public would never have anticipated.  And they make it doubly hard by not actually publishing the text of the bill so people can read it.

[Pragmier]

I can understand how those two provisions, if actually included, would give some pause. It would be nice to have the bill to discuss in an informed manner.

[West of the Rockies]

Anybody been following the latest infotainment skirmish in which Ann Coulter "jokingly" calls for Meghan McCain's murder?  It strikes me that Coulter is trying to bump off an up-and-coming blonde political pundit.  I find it difficult impossible to take Coulter seriously -- I think she's a grifter, exploiting right-wing discontent to make a very nice living for herself.  I have to say, I don't quite get the tendency for so-called "serious thinkers" to suggest felony-level violence on other people, and then act like they are the injured parties when not everyone regards their words as a joke.  (I'm thinking here of Ted Nugent, Sarah P., etc.)  And if you don't think of Uncle Ted as a serious thinker, why are some media-personalities always soliciting his opinion on political matters (think Dennis Miller).

[PB the Deplorable]

... I don't quite get the tendency for so-called "serious thinkers" to suggest felony-level violence on other people, and then act like they are the injured parties when not everyone regards their words as a joke...

I assume you are including Dem politicians, Hollywood left wing celebs, and various members of Lib pressure groups, because that's where nearly all this kind of 'joke' comes from, as well as most political hate, fear, name calling, and bile. 

Which is to be expected from people who base decisions on emotions, get their tactics from Rules For Radicals, and know the Media will cover for them.  It's actually news when a Conservative returns the favor.

[West of the Rockies]

Hello, Paperboy... Here is a list of Ann Coulter's book titles:  Godless:  The Church of Liberalism...  How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)...  Demonic:  How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America...  Slander:  Liberal Lies  about the American Right...  Treason:  Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism...  If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans...

Yeah, I see your point... It's definitely rare for a conservative to say something negative.

[West of the Rockies]

Yes, PB, liberals do it, too.  I used conservative examples in my post.  But having walked past the Barnes & Noble "politics" section lately, having braved 20 minutes of AM talk radio, I sort of get the sense that Republicans are not sipping tea and discussing ways in which they might kindly appeal to rational-thinking liberals in this country to address our myriad problems.

[PB the Deplorable]

Hello, Paperboy... Here is a list of Ann Coulter's book titles:  Godless:  The Church of Liberalism...  How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)...  Demonic:  How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America...  Slander:  Liberal Lies  about the American Right...  Treason:  Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism...  If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans...

Yeah, I see your point... It's definitely rare for a conservative to say something negative.

Ann Coulter was the first one to finally get tired of it and start firing back.  Others have followed her lead.  It took a quantum leap when a person as destructive and partisan as Obama became President (by the way, can you tell me one single thing he's done domestically that isn't either right out of The Communist Manifesto, Rules For Radicals, Chicago machine politics, or just plain old fashioned wealth redistribution and class/gender/race warfare?).


I approve of making the playing field more level by using some of those same tactics because I think it's the only way to put an end to it.  Or at least have issues fought on more even turms - the Conservatives will never stoop all the way down to their level.  The Libs never even seem to notice when their team does any of this stuff (constantly). 

I've personally never seen anyone as nasty and ugly and angry as some tolerant enlightened Leftist Lib when someone disagrees with them - and that's at a normal environment like an office, classroom, or party - take a look at what goes on at Occupy and the other 'demonstrations' ( I guess they are just 'outraged' and it gets the best of them in the moment?).   But the problem is Ann Coulter?

And we are talking about the party that was historically the party of the Klan, Japanese internment, segregation, and Jim Crow.  They ought to be groveling in apologies instead of brazenly always be saying it's the R's causing all the dissension.

[PB the Deplorable]

And I would also add - I have not read any of Ann Coulters books, but I am familiar with some of her columns.  From my viewpoint, she is mostly telling the truth about the Statists at the top making the decisions, their policies, and the results.  Sure she pokes fun and tosses in a few insults, but I'm not sure that's even worthy of being pointed out in a culture that features people like Steve Colbert, Jon Stewart, Michael Moore, etc.

Her real crime is daring to speak out at all. 

Take a look at our inner cities.  Businesses won't move there because of the crime, the kids don't get a decent education.  The wrong things are rewarded.    Anyone that can flees, and doesn't ever go back.  There is little opportunity, too few out there pointing the way out of the downward spiral.  And it's the 'Progressives' who are in charge of our big cities.  They govern them, unopposed - the mayor, the city council, the DA, the police, the judges, the school districts, the Congressional and state representatives from these places, are nearly all 'Progressive' Democrats.  They make all the decisions.  They have all the power.  For the most part, only their voice is ever heard.  It's their policies that are implemented.  Places like Chicago, not to put too fine a point on it..  And who do they blame for their utter and complete failure?  With smears and charges of racism?  They blame everyone but themselves.  They are not ever open to trying something else.  One could be forgiven to think they like it just the way it is - with them at the top.

They go to DC, to Congress, they send people like Barrack Obama - with the idea they are going to impose their policies on the rest of us even more than they have.   And with the Media, and just enough people that either don't care, don't pay attention, vote with their emotions, or are easlily led, they are getting damn close to permanently destroying our once great country.

And Ann Coulter, tired of it and fighting back, is the problem?

[Pragmier]

This is not meant as a political statement - just didn't know where else to post and since we've been discussing guns, why not?

Regarding the assassination of a Texas DA and his wife at home, a recent NYTimes article said:

The assault on the McLellands’ home was particularly brazen. Mr. McLelland, a 23-year Army veteran ... kept five to six dozen different types of firearms at his residence, many of them loaded, according to two law enforcement officials.

“There were guns hidden all over the house,” said Mr. McLelland’s son, J. R. McLelland, 39. “Behind doors, everywhere. He could have been standing next to a .40-caliber Glock and you would not have known it. When they said that he got shot, it was unbelievable because he was so well-armed and so well-versed in guns.”

Police are now speculating it may not have been organized gangs as previously thought. And that is not a misprint.

[onan]

This is not meant as a political statement - just didn't know where else to post and since we've been discussing guns, why not?

Regarding the assassination of a Texas DA and his wife at home, a recent NYTimes article said:
 
Police are now speculating it may not have been organized gangs as previously thought. And that is not a misprint.

Most people don't understand close quarter combat. When someone is startled it sometimes takes seconds to react. In less than a second an attacker can cover more than 10 feet. That is usually striking distance. Even with a gun in hand with a bullet in chamber, getting a shot off probably won't happen. An accurate shot... the likelihood is even a smaller. I don't understand how so many weapons get sold and no one ever tells the buyer about the number of hours of training needed to be effective in handling that weapon. Just so you know the number of hours needed is hundreds and ongoing.

[Pragmier]

Hence the thinking the assailants may have been known to the victim, allowing them to get close. Not only was McLelland well armed and trained, he was wary of an attack.

[Yorkshire pud]

Most people don't understand close quarter combat. When someone is startled it sometimes takes seconds to react. In less than a second an attacker can cover more than 10 feet. That is usually striking distance. Even with a gun in hand with a bullet in chamber, getting a shot off probably won't happen. An accurate shot... the likelihood is even a smaller. I don't understand how so many weapons get sold and no one ever tells the buyer about the number of hours of training needed to be effective in handling that weapon. Just so you know the number of hours needed is hundreds and ongoing.

As you know Onan, I've mentioned this several times in relation to arming school teachers as a matter of course. The specialists (Special forces) run off thousands of rounds in an afternoon. The British SF have what they call The Killing House. It's a building that they use as their training area for CQB and siege/hostage scenarios (I suppose US SF have similar). Live rounds are used, and occasionally someone gets hurt. Quiet how it's expected that an untrained, surprised and distracted school teacher is a match for someone switched on is anyone's guess.

[stevesh]

Most people don't understand close quarter combat. When someone is startled it sometimes takes seconds to react. In less than a second an attacker can cover more than 10 feet. That is usually striking distance. Even with a gun in hand with a bullet in chamber, getting a shot off probably won't happen. An accurate shot... the likelihood is even a smaller. I don't understand how so many weapons get sold and no one ever tells the buyer about the number of hours of training needed to be effective in handling that weapon. Just so you know the number of hours needed is hundreds and ongoing.

I teach the NRA class that's required to apply for a Concealed Pistol License here in Michigan. When Michigan changed its laws to Shall Issue, it took a while for those of us interested in the process to figure out what students wanted from a training class. Now, nearly fifteen years later, we know: they want the certificate they need to apply for a CPL. The information that the NRA includes in the course is good, and if taken seriously will help a student in a self-defense situation, but few take it seriously, and nearly none look for any advanced training.

There is a test included in the student's packet, but you don't need to pass it to complete the course, and most Instructors have stopped bothering with it. The actual shooting part of the course consists of firing 50-100 rounds on a range at paper targets.

To address onan's point, the course includes a discussion of the four states of awareness: Unaware, Aware, Alert and Alarm. Folks actually carrying concealed pistols should be in Aware (described as conscious of his/her surroundings and of those persons around him/her) at all times, but most aren't.  One could say the same thing about people driving cars, and once the emotionalism surrounding guns is taken out of the equation, our attention might be better focused on the wisdom of giving drivers licenses to 15-year-olds, after 'training' less intense than the CPL course.

Considering the excellent safety track record of CPL holders nationwide, it's easy to see that they aren't the problem.

[Juan]

Quiet how it's expected that an untrained, surprised and distracted school teacher is a match for someone switched on is anyone's guess.

The NRA proposal is to train the school employees (not necessarily teachers).  If you look at the school shooting cases,  the first people assaulted had no chance, but as the murderer went from room to room, people were alerted.  In the Virginia Tech case, for instance, one teacher had time to block the door and allow students to escape through windows.  At the recent Connecticut shooting, one teacher had time to hide all of the children in a closet before the killer burst in and shot her.  An armed, trained employee in the position of these two teachers would probably have an opportunity to stop, or at least slow down, the murderer.  Remember the police were notified immediately, but in Connecticut took 20-minutes to arrive.

In my city, the ranges are full of people practicing - at some one has to make an appointment.  I'm not sure how effective their practice is, but at least they're gaining familiarity with their weapons.

[PB the Deplorable]

Just knowing someone might be armed is going to be enough to keep many of these people from attacking a school in the first place.  If they do come, seeing a weapon or finding out there really is one will cause many of the rest of them to withdraw.

It's not a question of being completely helpless or adding to the problem by having the 'good guys' indiscrimenently shooting up the place in response.  Those are just the only two scenarios the anti-gun people want us to think there are.

The Cinemark Theater chain have a 'gun free' policy, as do most schools.  Law abiding gun owners adhere to these rules, and the people that go there to kill as many people as possible choose them in part due to those same policies.

How doe that cliche go about what if we could save even one child...

[onan]

I teach the NRA class that's required to apply for a Concealed Pistol License here in Michigan. When Michigan changed its laws to Shall Issue, it took a while for those of us interested in the process to figure out what students wanted from a training class. Now, nearly fifteen years later, we know: they want the certificate they need to apply for a CPL. The information that the NRA includes in the course is good, and if taken seriously will help a student in a self-defense situation, but few take it seriously, and nearly none look for any advanced training.

There is a test included in the student's packet, but you don't need to pass it to complete the course, and most Instructors have stopped bothering with it. The actual shooting part of the course consists of firing 50-100 rounds on a range at paper targets.

To address onan's point, the course includes a discussion of the four states of awareness: Unaware, Aware, Alert and Alarm. Folks actually carrying concealed pistols should be in Aware (described as conscious of his/her surroundings and of those persons around him/her) at all times, but most aren't.  One could say the same thing about people driving cars, and once the emotionalism surrounding guns is taken out of the equation, our attention might be better focused on the wisdom of giving drivers licenses to 15-year-olds, after 'training' less intense than the CPL course.

Considering the excellent safety track record of CPL holders nationwide, it's easy to see that they aren't the problem.

I am quite pleased to read that Stevesh, kudos. It does seem many here do have more of an understanding about firearms than the general population I deal with in the day to day. To add I think the NRA does a very good job in training. I know I don't say much positive about the group but this side of the fence thinks they are ok.


I think the safety of conceal carry speaks to both those that carry and the fact that mostly we live in a safe society. Since I first "carried", which has been a long time, I have yet to run into a situation where I would need to have a weapon. I think that is pretty much the overall for all that do carry.

[FightTheFuture]

Can someone explain to me how national gun registration would stop a single accident or intentional killing, or prevent the illegal sales going on now, or prevent the criminal that is illegally getting guns now from getting them?

Of course it won`t prevent a single homicide, and frankly, everyone on The Hill knows it. But, it will make the anti-gun folks feel a little better about themselves and keep the hollyweird dollars flowing into the DNC.


I don`t find much from Rush Limbaugh worth quoting, but I recall he once described the leftist legislative agenda as "symbolism over substance".  I reckon that pretty much sums up the current congressional "gun control" boondoggle. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Of course it won`t prevent a single homicide, and frankly, everyone on The Hill knows it. But, it will make the anti-gun folks feel a little better about themselves and keep the hollyweird dollars flowing into the DNC.


I don`t find much from Rush Limbaugh worth quoting, but I recall he once described the leftist legislative agenda as "symbolism over substance".  I reckon that pretty much sums up the current congressional "gun control" boondoggle. 

Well, we have compulsory gun registration; consequently very few people are killed with guns. It isn't 'leftist'..it isn't 'liberal', it isn't 'pinko, ruskie, anti freedom, liberty' bollox..It's common sense. I go back to my earlier statements based on statistical fact: you have nearly five times more chance of being killed with a gun, if you're armed yourself. Furthermore, as Stevesh said above, the actual practical self defence aspects are not compulsory, and most don't bother. So that pretty much negates the belief the 'law abiding' are armed because of self defence. If they were, they'd follow through to learn how to defend themselves..Or do they think that if and when the time comes, they'll magically be able to deal with a VERY highly stressed situation, fast moving, noisy, and possibly have multiple innocent bystanders? Five round grouping on paper targets  that aren't firing back isn't CQB.   

[stevesh]

I go back to my earlier statements based on statistical fact: you have nearly five times more chance of being killed with a gun, if you're armed yourself. Furthermore, as Stevesh said above, the actual practical self defence aspects are not compulsory, and most don't bother. So that pretty much negates the belief the 'law abiding' are armed because of self defence.

That 'five time' thing is a canard drawn from very selective (read: dishonest) parsing of certain statistics.

One could say that the fact that CPL holders accept the responsibility of being armed proves that we are at least more able to commit an act of self-defense (or defense of others) than the unarmed masses, despite our collective lack of advanced training. The first rule of gunfighting is: Have a Gun.

Most self-defense shootings happen as a result of criminal home or business invasions, rather than in public places generally.

BTW, I have examined some of the training courses offered to most police officers. Not much (if any) better than the class I teach.

[onan]

The simple fact is a home with a gun is 100 percent more likely to have a gun death than a home without a gun. But that isn't much different than saying a cattle rancher is more likely to die from a stampede than a baker. It really is simple, we have more gun deaths than most countries. I see no way to compare a third world countries gun deaths to that of the US. There is also no denying if we (the US) were really concerned about gun violence we would do something about it. But we aren't. It is as obvious as the nose on our collective faces. We are tribal and if it doesn't happen to one close to us it doesn't really happen. I am pretty sure if Stevesh had a daughter in the Newtown school his perspective would be different. I am not sure that perspective would be any more correct than his perspective now.

[FightTheFuture]

The problem is not gun laws..



...So says a dad of a Sandy Hook victim. I find it predictable, if not disgraceful,  that Mr. Mattioli gets absolutely no press coverage from anyone (other than Fox News, of course). The WH would like everyone to believe that all  the victim`s parents at Sandy Hook favor more stringent gun laws. This is simply not the case, but the media (with exception of FNC, of course); i.e. , White House stenographers, dutifully promulgate whatever storyline their "ruler" decrees.


[size=78%]http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/28/video-dad-of-sandy-hook-victim-gives-emotional-remarks-on-gun-control-saying-the-problem-is-not-gun-laws/[/size] 

[PB the Deplorable]

Well, we have compulsory gun registration; consequently very few people are killed with guns...

It isn't the gun registration, it's the outlawing of guns.  Having the same amount of guns out there, but with the legal ones written down somewhere does nothing. 

For example if the Sandy Hook guns had been registered, that kid would still have taken them and shot up the school.  The Aurora shooter would have done exactly the same thing had his guns been 'registered'.

Having the guns of at least the honest people registered would be of great benefit for some future tyrant though.  The people that wish to steal our liberty are happy to do it little by little, step by step, feel-good law by feel-good law.

[Yorkshire pud]

The problem is not gun laws..



...So says a dad of a Sandy Hook victim. I find it predictable, if not disgraceful,  that Mr. Mattioli gets absolutely no press coverage from anyone (other than Fox News, of course). The WH would like everyone to believe that all  the victim`s parents at Sandy Hook favor more stringent gun laws. This is simply not the case, but the media (with exception of FNC, of course); i.e. , White House stenographers, dutifully promulgate whatever storyline their "ruler" decrees.


[size=78%]http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/28/video-dad-of-sandy-hook-victim-gives-emotional-remarks-on-gun-control-saying-the-problem-is-not-gun-laws/[/size]

I have a problem with anyone who is the victim of horrendous crime being elevated to an overnight expert. It happens over here too. A kidnap involving a child occurs and the family is suddenly the oracle on how to deal with child abduction. They're far from experts. They're deeply distressed, traumatised individuals whose new 'normal' is far from normal. They're frequently exploited by the press and any partisan side with an agenda (Which is why Fox has latched on to this man, unless you really think Fox represents impartial and unbiased reporting?).

[PB the Deplorable]

I have a problem with anyone who is the victim of horrendous crime being elevated to an overnight expert. It happens over here too. A kidnap involving a child occurs and the family is suddenly the oracle on how to deal with child abduction. They're far from experts. They're deeply distressed, traumatised individuals whose new 'normal' is far from normal. They're frequently exploited by the press and any partisan side with an agenda (Which is why Fox has latched on to this man, unless you really think Fox represents impartial and unbiased reporting?).

Is it ok that Obama and the Media have latched onto the other parents?  I think when the anti-gun crusaders - including high profile Obama events - decided to exploit the Sandy Hook victims parents, this parents voice needed to be heard as well.


This is a great example of Fox News being the only network to show a different side of things - a side that doesn't follow the narrative the regular Media wants to lay out for us, a side the lockstep Media won't show - and then being critized for it.   

I'm pretty sure Fox showed all those Obama events and other interviews with Sandy Hook parents as well, yet it's Fox that is the one accused of biased reporting. 

[Yorkshire pud]

It isn't the gun registration, it's the outlawing of guns.  Having the same amount of guns out there, but with the legal ones written down somewhere does nothing. 

Well demonstrably, it does work. Being in possession of a firearm over here carries substantial penalties unless you can prove you have good cause and permission to do so; Consequently even gang members think twice about searching out firearms as the imprisonment term for possession will in many cases add five years automatically weather or not the accused pleads guilty or not. Shortening a gun barrel adds more sentence. Carrying an imitation firearm carries a year (but of course the circumstances of it's possession will also be taken into account, so if it's used in a bank robbery it's a bad day at the office).. It isn't just 'writing down' who owns one. It's monitored and the owner subject to inspection of their firearm and ammunition security (as in kept in a locked cabinet) at any time. As I said before, the potential owner has to show justification to own a firearm, not the authorities justifying why he shouldn't.

For example if the Sandy Hook guns had been registered, that kid would still have taken them and shot up the school.  The Aurora shooter would have done exactly the same thing had his guns been 'registered'.

If his mother hadn't owned them in the first place he wouldn't. The type of weapons reportedly used are illegal to possess in the UK too.

Having the guns of at least the honest people registered would be of great benefit for some future tyrant though.  The people that wish to steal our liberty are happy to do it little by little, step by step, feel-good law by feel-good law.

Here we go, the tyrant thing again. If you're so convinced that the population armed to the teeth (the good guys) would stop a tyrant, you believe that Santa Clause falls down the chimney each Christmas eve. As a matter of curiosity, I'd be interested how much in revenue the armaments manufacturers generate by one of their supporters trotting out the tyrant bogeyman and paranoid buy into it.