Guns, Guns Guns

The E wrote:No, as always, the danger these groups represent doesn't rest in their capacity for and willingness to use violence, it's in the reaction they provoke from the public and the political establishment.

...If they push America too hard and Trump gets into power, the reaction might be cruise missiles hitting the Kaaba.
"After all, those durned mooslems destroyed dose buddu satchoos, amiright? Den it's jest fur play."
That's the problem with escalation. Sometimes the other side escalates back harder and faster than you expected.
I really hope those Islamists don't try to escalate...

http://art-of-swords.tumblr.com/post/14 ... a-six-shot

Damn, I want one.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Might have to move to own it. It is cool, though.

Annachie wrote:http://art-of-swords.tumblr.com/post/148017814069/hidden-stiletto-cane-with-a-six-shot

Damn, I want one.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

From: http://constitution.com/washington-stat ... et-rifles/

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” [Thomas Jefferson letter to John Cartwright, 1824 . The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME), Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, 16:45.]

This argument is not new. Who was it that stated that all political power came from the barrel of a gun

DDHv wrote:From: http://constitution.com/washington-stat ... et-rifles/

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” [Thomas Jefferson letter to John Cartwright, 1824 . The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME), Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, 16:45.]

This argument is not new. Who was it that stated that all political power came from the barrel of a gun

It was also Jefferson who wrote about how all generations should write their own constitution, because it should never be the dead who rules the living.

Jefferson was especially outspoken over the genetic inferiority of Blacks. And There is always the much neglected (perhaps ignored?) Article VI Giving the US Supreme court, not every arsehole seeking to exercise it, the ultimate right to interpret the Constitution. And also the Amendment process itself. Much was intentionally not put into the Constitution so the political process could resolve issues.

Shows how weirdly wired I am, I'm a liberal who owns guns and got my gun fearing spouse into shooting and owning her own.

WeirdlyWired wrote:Jefferson was especially outspoken over the genetic inferiority of Blacks. And There is always the much neglected (perhaps ignored?) Article VI Giving the US Supreme court, not every arsehole seeking to exercise it, the ultimate right to interpret the Constitution. And also the Amendment process itself. Much was intentionally not put into the Constitution so the political process could resolve issues.

Shows how weirdly wired I am, I'm a liberal who owns guns and got my gun fearing spouse into shooting and owning her own.

Today, the amendment process is being ignored, as is the constitution generally. I suggest anyone wanting to know just how much thought went into it to study the Federalist papers. They didn't get things perfect. Who does?

Speaking of which: http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/09/29 ... sletterad=

We don’t have the luxuries of hindsight nor omnipotence.

Either the police train to key on threatening movements, or we end up watching police get gunned down by criminals in droves.

It s a binary choice.

Pick which one you prefer.

Which is why if talking to a police officer, I will choose to move slowly and carefully, keeping both hands in plain sight. Why strain their ability to decide correctly?

We don't have foresight either. An interesting article discussed the implications of two types of brain damage. One type analyses, but never decides, thus does nothing. The other decides without analyzing "He jumped on his horse and galloped off in all directions at once." and therefore does nothing well. Wish I could remember the sources to point to them. Always, we are wrong somewhere, which is why testing our assumptions is critical. One reason engineering works well is failure analysis - digging for more information when something doesn't work as expected. This is why airplanes carry very sturdy black box recorders

DDHv your last paragraph reminds me os a saying at the crusher (Command School) that military officers have two levels of attributes intelligence and energy.
You could get -
Smart but lazy - ok as do little harm
Dumb but lazy- useless passenger
Smart and egergetic - great but liable to be stolen
Dumb and energetic - total disaster

Its rather an aside, but did the British Medical community actually or try to ban sales of acetaminophen in any but blister packs of 10 to try to reduce the number of suicides? I recently read where 67% of gun deaths in the US are suicides.

I question the number only because there is no standard, yea even consistent, way of reporting (recording) firearm fatalities. How many people do the police actually shoot every year: unreported. How many suicides: unknown because some states report them separately, some do not.

The problem I see in the US is not a firearms problem, it is an anger expression problem. When I graduated High School (1967)long guns were ubiquitous. you could pull into our student parking lot and there would be 15 pick up trucks. Each one would have a gun rack hanging over the rear window. 10 had 1 shotgun or rifle, the other 5 had one of each. Not long after I graduated University, guns disappeared from sight. Why one could ask: because they were being stolen.

"Shoot first, let the lawyers sort out the bodies" seems to be the way to resolve disputes. MY opinion is that If we did ban and eliminate 99% of all firearms our society would mimic neither Britain or Australia. It would go the way of The Russian Republic. We'd just start going after each other with meat cleavers and steak knives. Firearms is just a cheap excuse to avoid dealing with the mental health issues in this country.

We don’t have the luxuries of hindsight nor omnipotence.

Either the police train to key on threatening movements, or we end up watching police get gunned down by criminals in droves.

It s a binary choice.

Pick which one you prefer.

That is just such total BULLSHIT. What is really being said is "we are incapable of training our police officers properly, or we´re not accepting the right kind of people as police officers in the first place".

The bastard who said that is effectively asking carte blanche for a policestate where people have zero value, because oh my a police officer MIGHT be in danger, can´t have that, it´s just what they´re paid for and trained for. And unless they´re complete idiots, they damn well knew that when they joined.

THEN we have the flaws in the very argument itself. No, it´s not a binary choice.
And NO, police are almost never "gunned down in droves", even in places where the police do not carry guns.
And damn, there´s so many stupid flaws in that short quote that it´s just sad.

That it is NOT a binary choice is the very reason we have police and soldiers are two different things. You simply cannot treat policework as being on a battlefield, end of story.

DDHv wrote:Which is why if talking to a police officer, I will choose to move slowly and carefully, keeping both hands in plain sight. Why strain their ability to decide correctly?

That is of course always a good idea regardless, especially if they have been given reason to be more twitchy than normal.

But almost any police who shoots first and ask questions later, is just not fit to be a police.