Guns, Guns Guns

By her own statements and what she said she is a conservative no matter what party affiliation she may have.

Why are you continuing use the false equivalency of the Democrat = Liberal and Republican = Conservative? The reverse used to be true and the switch didn't begin until after FDR was in office.

You're right that I was grouping all Conservatives together. Whether or not that is right or fair it is the exact same thing you and other posters have been doing to Liberals. IF you don't like people doing that to you, then don't do it to others.

PeterZ wrote:Kim Davis is a Democrat. I doubt there are many conservative democrats and so I referred to her by her affiliation and used that to ascribe a belief system as it relates to the matter. Assuming that because she opposed gay marriage that she must be conservative is just wrong.

I agree with you that those that want small government shouldn't seek to use government to address issues. For the most part this is true. There are however, social conservatives that for all practical purposes believe in big government. Santorum and Kasich are cases in point. When these people try to use government to move their goals, they are not small government conservatives. Ascribing the their big government goals to ALL conservatives, even those that do not hold their big government beliefs is conflating issues.

In short you are citing contradictions that do not exist. Conflating different elements of conservatives is as helpful as conflating the motives of the disparate elements of liberals and progressives. Greens do have the same priorities as the Black lives Matter folks and vice versa.

Donnachaidh wrote:My frustration is not with Conservatives, my frustration is with the hypocrisy of claiming the government is too intrusive then making laws that are more intrusive. The Liberals don't hide that they're going to make laws and spend money, the Conservatives claim they want fewer laws and will spend less money yet they do the same as the Liberals.

When I spoke of refusing to sign marriage licenses I was speaking of Kim Davis, the most well known example.

A minor point, I have consistently spoken of Conservatives vs Liberals, not Democrats vs Republicans. That is because, especially the farther back you go, Democrat does not necessarily mean Liberal nor does Republican necessarily mean Conservative.

Fair enough, although in my defense I usually refer to the size of government when I refer to liberals with a broad brush. That is one of the consistent beliefs across all flavor of liberal. The specific flavor of liberal does vary beyond that one apparent constant.

My issue with Democrat and liberal is that I don't see anyone that has predominantly conservative views supporting a party that believes so little in the preponderance of those views. Social conservatives like apparently Kim Davis is would have issues with the Democrat's position on abortion if nothing else. So either she does not hold all views that conservatives hold or she is not being honest.

So, while agree it is sloppy of me. It is not without reason. Besides, I was refuting your blithe and false assertion on a contradiction between conservative and small government. I was not complaining that you lumped conservatives together in some offensive way.

Donnachaidh wrote:By her own statements and what she said she is a conservative no matter what party affiliation she may have.

Why are you continuing use the false equivalency of the Democrat = Liberal and Republican = Conservative? The reverse used to be true and the switch didn't begin until after FDR was in office.

You're right that I was grouping all Conservatives together. Whether or not that is right or fair it is the exact same thing you and other posters have been doing to Liberals. IF you don't like people doing that to you, then don't do it to others.

smr wrote:The FBI in overhelming force shot and killed the leader. Not once...not twice....but 9 gunshots. Hmm....sounds supsicious.....could they just tasered the guy.

Whilst I agree with the tasering, (although given the weather and thick clothing worn tasering would not have been sucessful) once shooting starts the cops shoot until the target drops. Can not really argue against that.
It's the before the shooting starts that I'd like to see worked on.


I've met US militia members.

Also met Australian mercenaries too.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Thanks PeterZ for your clarification. I agree with you in that I would accept government decisions if made under our constitutional framework and laws, but would also revolt if someone hijacked our government and moved towards dictatorship. No clash between us personally at all, but some of the US right rhetoric does go further.

On a related matter I object to the practice of pigeon holing everyone into two camps. Along the lines of someone is a conservative so they support xyz, and someone else is a progressive so they support the opposite.
On balance I support more progressive items than conservative ones, but in some things I'm quite conservative. I support gay rights and marriage, a national welfare/health safety net, antidiscrimation laws and more along those lines. However I also support personal freedom and the right to defend myself and family.
Being a gun owner I am not antigun, but I am pro gun control. No problem with responsible people owning guns, but I don't want people carrying them in public or a society where people feel that they need to.
Not many people here would have my gun experience - grew up on a station (ranch) where as a young teen you'd pick up your rifle with your bridle and saddle at the day's start, or have military training, have won range competitions, or have worked as a professional hunter. So not anti gun but happy to live where the police don't shoot first because criminals are unlikely to be armed, or people get mugged by armed hoods.

According to historians, the Girandoni rifle was not only Lewis & Clark’s go to weapon of choice but also the official rifle of the Austrian army from 1780 to 1815.

These famous explorers knew when they struck out to explore the frontier that they wouldn’t be able to stop by Bud’s Gun Shop and pick up gunpowder along the way. And they had to constantly deal with wet powder, and long load times…

When they were in the wild, faced with apex predators and Indian attacks, they did not have time to hesitate… they need a rifle that would fire… every time.

This is new to me. It is from an advertisement for an updated air rifle with about three times the muzzle velocity, IIRR (If I read right)

One of my biggest pet peeves in US political discourse is identity politics. Too many on both sides over here encourage self selection into separate groups and define those groups by a few key issues. Then these political jackholes pit one group against another. The political calculation is I suppose to enable the shrewdest politicians to be able to collect the groups with the proper promises. Sort of like collecting pieces of a puzzle.

That sort of mentality reflects the worst part of European colonialism in Africa. Pit one tribe against another in a region to keep the area under control.

The tactic will only work if commonalities are destroyed or downplayed enough to be immaterial. Attacking America's history and achievements, its common values and generally cooperative nature. This last was noted by de Tocqueville in Democracy in America. From our beginnings we associated together to accomplish common goals. These association were not defined by familial relationships as is most common in the rest of the world. No, the associations were formed by common ideals and motives. Americans from our beginnings formed associations based on ideas and ideals. In other words, we define ourselves by what we believe and then freely associate with other to act on our beliefs from the beginning of our nation.

Identity politics takes that uniquely American attribute and the small differences in those ideas and uses it to balkanize the American people. It takes a people that gather together to accomplish what needs to be done and changes them into a bunch of subgroups that cast a suspicious eye to any group that hold different views.

Daryl wrote:Thanks PeterZ for your clarification. I agree with you in that I would accept government decisions if made under our constitutional framework and laws, but would also revolt if someone hijacked our government and moved towards dictatorship. No clash between us personally at all, but some of the US right rhetoric does go further.

On a related matter I object to the practice of pigeon holing everyone into two camps. Along the lines of someone is a conservative so they support xyz, and someone else is a progressive so they support the opposite.
On balance I support more progressive items than conservative ones, but in some things I'm quite conservative. I support gay rights and marriage, a national welfare/health safety net, antidiscrimation laws and more along those lines. However I also support personal freedom and the right to defend myself and family.
Being a gun owner I am not antigun, but I am pro gun control. No problem with responsible people owning guns, but I don't want people carrying them in public or a society where people feel that they need to.
Not many people here would have my gun experience - grew up on a station (ranch) where as a young teen you'd pick up your rifle with your bridle and saddle at the day's start, or have military training, have won range competitions, or have worked as a professional hunter. So not anti gun but happy to live where the police don't shoot first because criminals are unlikely to be armed, or people get mugged by armed hoods.

What a felon with a unlicensed and unregistered handgun, that's just shocking! Oh, he was carrying 2 different illegal drugs!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/25/police-release-graphic-dashcam-footage-showing-what-happens-in-the-seconds-after-felon-appears-to-reach-for-officers-gun/

Thanks SMR. Exactly what I was talking about. Because we have had strict gun laws for decades very few low echelon criminals have access to guns. If they do get one it is often a sawn off single shot rifle. Our cops don't automatically assume that they are facing someone with a revolver, automatic pistol or assault rifle.
I'm not saying that in an entire continent occupied by 24 mill pretty well off people there aren't some baddies with serious weaponry, but it is rare.

smr wrote:What a felon with a unlicensed and unregistered handgun, that's just shocking! Oh, he was carrying 2 different illegal drugs!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/25/police-release-graphic-dashcam-footage-showing-what-happens-in-the-seconds-after-felon-appears-to-reach-for-officers-gun/

PeterZ wrote:I apologize for an unclear post. I do not advocate violence to promote national policy. I do assert violence is an acceptable defense against government over reach. Police breaking into my home without notifying me they have a warrant or requesting permission are examples. We see such examples on TV dramas every night.

Why should violence be more justified in such a case than solving the issue through the courts and the political process?

pokermind wrote:The fact that kids today are diffrent than those in the past self centered, entitled, with no respect for the rules of society IMHO. Ofcourse many old fogies feel this way and have since the begining of time

Poker

Socrates (possibly) wrote:The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise

If government corrupts the political process sufficiently, violence becomes the only option.

Eyal wrote:

PeterZ wrote:I apologize for an unclear post. I do not advocate violence to promote national policy. I do assert violence is an acceptable defense against government over reach. Police breaking into my home without notifying me they have a warrant or requesting permission are examples. We see such examples on TV dramas every night.

Why should violence be more justified in such a case than solving the issue through the courts and the political process?

pokermind wrote:The fact that kids today are diffrent than those in the past self centered, entitled, with no respect for the rules of society IMHO. Ofcourse many old fogies feel this way and have since the begining of time

Poker

Socrates (possibly) wrote:The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise