Yup, and there is also a valid interpretation that the 2nd Amendment calls for something like the National Guard.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Yup, and there is also a valid interpretation that the 2nd Amendment calls for something like the National Guard.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
The idea was a trained citizen militia would be preferable to a professional, (mercenary), army. Once we decided that a professional army was necessary the original intent of the 2nd was nullified.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
I read the previous few pages of discussion over weapons and it brings me right back to a post I made earlier that was not received well. Being hard headed and curious on the subject, I'd like to bring the concepts I presented in that thread back up for discussion.
There are some bright people contributing to this discussion, I do not share all their views but seem to share a lot of their goals. I'm most certainly learning by participating and am grateful for that.
We tend to spend a lot of time on the minutia of concepts here. What is the historical basis for this; what is the full fact pattern for that? These things are important but once a basic understanding of the topic is arrived at, continued effort in these areas does not seem to be the way that consensus is reached or minds are changed (or change is brought about). Perhaps I'm not patient enough.
It is this observation, right or wrong, that drives me to pull back and try better to understand the forrest once I have at least a base line understanding of the trees.
I look at politics and agree with most here about the problem with this or the issue with that. When I ask myself why things are the way they are and why they are trending as they appear to be, I come up with one of two explanations. Either the fundamental idea of democracy does not work because a representative cross section of a given population is just too stupid in mass to make quality decisions about running things (without the heavy handed intervention of powerful/capiable/competent interests) or that the corruption that is human nature has not been checked and is eroding the effectiveness of democracy. I can not bring myself to give up on democracy so I gravitate to the second option. Once I come to that conclusion, it is hard for me to delve even deeper into the elements of climate change, the effectiveness of the NRA, our inability to produce a functioning health care system or any other important element of functional collective government. If you do not address the fundamental driver (IMO) of dysfunction, dysfunction will prevail no matter your passion for your particular issue.
These are absolute statements and we obviously live in a world of grey. Enough people protest on a hot button issue and there may be a minor correction to the path in question but the change is more likely to be knee jerk feel good in nature as opposed to cold hard analysis based with attention to future un-intended consequences.
The discussion about guns follows this trend. There is no doubt a majority of people would like to do sensible things to address the issue. We fail to do anything, in large part to my mind, because we talk at each other instead of too each other. I get why people that do not care about guns see them as the bad guy and not the bad actor behind the gun. Regretfully, even an appreciation of someone's position will not get me to a level of trust that a conversation about real issues of who we are with guns is not the surface of a no gun core. To get on the same sheet of paper for a solution, we have to be discussing the same issues and addressing each other's concerns.
Put differently, we have changed as a people. We do not have the values we did fifty years ago for better or for worse. I feel the acceptance of money and corruption in our public lives is for the worse. Our migration away from personal responsibility to the government should fix this for us approach is similarly vexing for me.
I hope the above helps to explain why I keep writing "Look no further than the mirror if you want to find the problem" and that applies to me more than any of you.
There are some bright people contributing to this discussion, I do not share all their views but seem to share a lot of their goals. I'm most certainly learning by participating and am grateful for that.
We tend to spend a lot of time on the minutia of concepts here. What is the historical basis for this; what is the full fact pattern for that? These things are important but once a basic understanding of the topic is arrived at, continued effort in these areas does not seem to be the way that consensus is reached or minds are changed (or change is brought about). Perhaps I'm not patient enough.
It is this observation, right or wrong, that drives me to pull back and try better to understand the forrest once I have at least a base line understanding of the trees.
I look at politics and agree with most here about the problem with this or the issue with that. When I ask myself why things are the way they are and why they are trending as they appear to be, I come up with one of two explanations. Either the fundamental idea of democracy does not work because a representative cross section of a given population is just too stupid in mass to make quality decisions about running things (without the heavy handed intervention of powerful/capiable/competent interests) or that the corruption that is human nature has not been checked and is eroding the effectiveness of democracy. I can not bring myself to give up on democracy so I gravitate to the second option. Once I come to that conclusion, it is hard for me to delve even deeper into the elements of climate change, the effectiveness of the NRA, our inability to produce a functioning health care system or any other important element of functional collective government. If you do not address the fundamental driver (IMO) of dysfunction, dysfunction will prevail no matter your passion for your particular issue.
These are absolute statements and we obviously live in a world of grey. Enough people protest on a hot button issue and there may be a minor correction to the path in question but the change is more likely to be knee jerk feel good in nature as opposed to cold hard analysis based with attention to future un-intended consequences.
The discussion about guns follows this trend. There is no doubt a majority of people would like to do sensible things to address the issue. We fail to do anything, in large part to my mind, because we talk at each other instead of too each other. I get why people that do not care about guns see them as the bad guy and not the bad actor behind the gun. Regretfully, even an appreciation of someone's position will not get me to a level of trust that a conversation about real issues of who we are with guns is not the surface of a no gun core. To get on the same sheet of paper for a solution, we have to be discussing the same issues and addressing each other's concerns.
Put differently, we have changed as a people. We do not have the values we did fifty years ago for better or for worse. I feel the acceptance of money and corruption in our public lives is for the worse. Our migration away from personal responsibility to the government should fix this for us approach is similarly vexing for me.
I hope the above helps to explain why I keep writing "Look no further than the mirror if you want to find the problem" and that applies to me more than any of you.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
George Will in Washington Post through Chicago Tribune - Friday evening:
The shabbiest U.S. president ever is an inexpressibly sad specimen
Long-time conservative pundit George Will left the Republican party in 2016 and registered unaffiliated when Trump won the Republican nomination for the presidency. Like me he is a life-long rabid Chicago Cub fan, and in 2016 we were both particularly excited about the Cubs as they marched toward their first World Series championship in 108 years. He's always had my ear, even when we might disagree.
The shabbiest U.S. president ever is an inexpressibly sad specimen
Long-time conservative pundit George Will left the Republican party in 2016 and registered unaffiliated when Trump won the Republican nomination for the presidency. Like me he is a life-long rabid Chicago Cub fan, and in 2016 we were both particularly excited about the Cubs as they marched toward their first World Series championship in 108 years. He's always had my ear, even when we might disagree.
Last edited:
All is not lost. Countries have gone off the rails before and recovered. The financial corruption in the US today is not all that different from the Gilded Age. The bad news is it usually takes a leader coming in who saves the day. Teddy Roosevelt was the leader who helped bring an end to the Gilded Age. Roosevelt started the process of breaking up the trusts, but he didn't reform everything. FDR was the one who shifted the scales to help the "little guy" more and started shifting wealth more evenly.
Lincoln started the 3rd Party System, Teddy Roosevelt kicked off the 4th Party System, FDR the 5th, and Reagan the 6th. Party systems start when the old ways of doing things are no longer working and the ills that developed during the last system need addressing. There are problems with each party system and corruption does often creep in as time goes on.
Long ago when I was trying to get my own head together, I observed humanity could be divided into two groups: givers and takers. It seems to be an inherent thing in a person's wiring. At least some people can be trained to be the opposite and I think everyone should fight their nature at least a bit to come to a balance. Givers who only give often end up burned out and ill. Takers who never give usually end up hated by everyone. The people who seem to be healthiest are those who give all they can when they can, but know when they are overextended and pull back when needed.
The 6th Party System has largely been about the takers. "Greed is good" is the mantra from the 80s that has characterized this era in American politics. Collectively we are becoming aware of the terrible things that can come out of a taker mentality. Many of us have been aware of the lobbyist culture in Washington, the corruption in the prescription drug business, the corruption with defense contractors, and all the other graft going on.
But there is a fairly large segment of the population who don't get upset until they experience it and feel it. And that is beginning to happen. The greedy jerks have also been able to distract those who were feeling it and getting upset and blaming someone other than them for their predicament. Most of those people voted for Trump.
This isn't just happening in politics, we also have things like the Me Too movement and Black Lives Matter bringing attention to abuses that have been going on for decades under the radar. The givers are beginning to get the upper hand again and we're waiting for the seed crystal of a leader to emerge and make it all happen.
This isn't just an American phenomena. Other countries have reformed too. Oliver Cromwell stepped into the void created when England got rid of the monarchy and he rigged parliament to be a rubber stamp on anything he wanted to do, but eventually parliament acted to stop him. It was a moment in British history equivalent to the Republican party in Congress rising up en masse to get rid of Trump. Nobody thought it would happen until it did.
The Catholic Church split with two popes at one time for almost 40 years in the late 1300s to early 1400s. An earlier split saw the Eastern Orthodox Church split away from the Roman Catholic Church, but in the later split the western church figured out how to resolve the schism and get the two factions back together again. But in the Reformation, new churches split off from Rome.
So sometimes these things end with factions splitting and new groups forming. Other times the factions figure out how to get along together. Sometimes the system collapses, which has happened too. In the case of the US, it's pretty much impossible for the factions to split permanently because of the way they are distributed. One faction is primarily urban and the other primarily rural with the suburbs leaning towards the rural for much of the 6th Party System, but now leaning the other way. The suburbs would also have to side with the urban in a real split because most people in the suburbs make their living off the nearby urban center.
The US can't physically split into two countries along urban+suburban and rural lines. It would be unviable. Some other solution has to be found. There is the possibility that the US could devolve into a de facto civil war with the more violent factions fighting the government which will probably be in the hands of the urban+suburban faction. But I doubt there would be enough extremists in the rural areas to carry out more than a short insurgency campaign.
There is talk of another New Deal and if that happens, a lot of the upset people who are supporting Trump now would be happy because they would see their lot improving. Ultimately economic factors are what drives most Americans' votes these days. If the economy really is lifting the lower part of the population, even just a little bit, it will settle a lot of the instability.
That doesn't answer all the problems. You mentioned gun violence, which is a problem that is not purely economical (though the gun lobby throwing money around has made the problem worse). The issue may take care of itself as the NRA is in serious financial trouble and so are gun makers. Gun makers raked in huge profits during the Obama years with the "the black man is going to take your guns" scare tactic, but now with Obama gone, all those people who spent their life savings on guns have quit buying. The gun industry is collapsing.
That doesn't solve the gun violence problem directly, but with the lobby fighting against any changes weakened, rational heads my prevail.
It isn't guaranteed, but in 10 years or so we might collectively be in a much better situation than today. There are a lot of ideas out there about how to solve the problems, all it takes is a good leader to make it happen.
In chemistry you can have a thing called a super saturated solution. That is a solution that is holding as much dissolve solids as it can. For example take water and dissolve as much table salt as possible in it. Crystals won't form yet out of the solution, but when it is in that saturated state, all it takes is a bit of a jolt or a seed crystal to make the whole thing crystallize. We are at that state politically right now. The 7th Party System is past due.
Here is an example of what I'm talking about:
The Twitter comments have been withering. Some people pointed out San Antonio once had a wall, at the Alamo, and it didn't stop the Mexicans.
Over the last week he's been talking about such "great" ancient technologies like walls. I would point out that spears were used as weapons of war for thousands of years, but how many spears to we issue to the US Army today: 0. Why? They are an obsolete weapon. Walls are obsolete as a barrier for this kind of job. Just like spears are still used for fishing, walls have uses, but not the best option along a border anymore.
If Trump is obsessing about something, the question to ask is how he's going to profit from it, or how will it make him look better. At this point I think even Trump is realizing the whole wall thing isn't making him look better, so how does he profit from it? Here is the probably vector:
Letter: Who will profit from Trump’s border wall?
The mill in Portland is the only one in the country that can make the specific slats for Trumps steel fence.
The way Trump is obsessing, I think he owes some kind of debt and the oligarch who owns the steel mill is taking a border wall in payment. When Trump restarted the Keystone XL project he gave a no bid contract for the steel to a Russian oligarch (possibly the same one, I don't remember at the moment).
If Trump was just going to get a kick back from this, I think he would have dropped it right now. I think he's being threatened with something, possibly Russian cooperation with Mueller if he doesn't give them what he wants.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
And its really bad for health.
Funny thing is even high fructose corn syrup is actually less bad compared to common sugar. Somehow the combination of fructose & glucose is worse than either of them individually.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
wdolson,
I just really have a problem with waiting for a savior to come in and fix things when we are the things that seem to need fixing.
I just really have a problem with waiting for a savior to come in and fix things when we are the things that seem to need fixing.
People acting independently can have some impact, but there are some things that aren't going to happen without an organized movement. In the US Civil War, the North had a larger population, a larger industrial base, a stronger economic base, and still did poorly until they finally found some good leaders. When the stock market crashed in 1929 and the US sank into the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover floundered around while the economy reeled. It took some new blood with new ideas to get the country moving towards digging out. Hoover didn't start the Depression, in fact a good argument can be made that the roots of the Depression started in Europe, but he didn't have the leadership talent to pull the country together to fight the problem.
When the Germans invaded France the government of Neville Chamberlain in the UK fell the same day because he was not good at inspiring people to the cause. Lord Halifax almost became PM in his place, but they selected Churchill instead. Halifax was pretty pro-Nazi and would have sued for peace. Churchill was the figure who the country needed to lead.
Many thought Obama was going to be the new leader to bring in new ideas and new blood and essentially kick start the 7th Party System, but he failed to do that. I think it was because he came to power before he was experienced enough. Out of inexperience, he chose 6th Party System economic people, and was overall too cautious. The Democrats in general were too timid to grab the opportunity and run with it. They allowed Fox News to continue to control the narrative. The other news outlets were also cowed by Fox and kept up the false equivalency narrative.
The false equivalency is gone and the Democrats have found their voice. New blood in the Democratic caucus are making waves and enabling the established Democrats to act more boldly.
If Obama was not ineligible to run for president, he could run in this environment and actually sweep in a new era instead of kowtow to the old.
Leadership is important. It can make or break any cause. Without leadership causes will die for lack of direction. That was the problem with the Occupy Movement. They were intent on being leadership free and it cost them. If someone like Ocasio-Cortez had taken control of the movement, it could have become a force in American politics, but instead it's a mostly forgotten footnote of the last decade.
I've been casting about for someone who is eligible to run for president who is an inspiring speaker, dynamic leader, and has new ideas. Beto O'Rourke the closest I've seen, but I'm not sure he's the one though.
Nobody on the list of Democrats for 2020 quite fits the bill yet, but at this point in 1979 nobody knew Ronald Reagan was going to have the impact he eventually had. A lot of the impact a leader has is who he or she brings with them. Reagan had a team of advisers who may not have had the best intentions of the country at heart, but were effective at changing things. Same with Roosevelt, though Roosevelt was probably more of an original thinker than Reagan was.
A lot of what happened in both 1932 and 1980 had a lot to do with the electorate being ready for a real change. That gave the new president unusually large amount of political capital they spend well to cement in a new party system. Obama misspent his political capital getting the ACA trough and the Republicans chipped away his political capital to a point he had little left by the time that fight was done.
Leadership is an interesting area of Psychology that is hard to nail down exactly. One person can mimic all the positions and characteristics of another and get nowhere. In this age of Trump, there have been other Republicans who have tried to mimic Trump and failed even with Trump's base. Trump is overall an awful leader, but he has an instinct of how to sell BS to a certain demographic and he is a master at it. Imitators fail trying the same thing to the same people.
Frustrating as it may be, we're going to flail around until the right leader comes to serve as the seed crystal.
Beto O'Rourke did a solid job of touring all the counties in Texas, but then he was too soft in the debates, instead of countering nonsense with facts fell back on telling stories and talking about feelings. It's no wonder he couldn't oust even Ted Cruz who is pretty much the most hated guy in the Senate, not even the other Republicans can stand him.
There's no way he can survive in the shark infested waters that are the Presidential primary and general election campaigns.
The main problem will of course be the DNC sabotaging the non-establishment candidates again. In *that* fashion, Beto has a better chance than say, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Richard Ojeda ...
There's no way he can survive in the shark infested waters that are the Presidential primary and general election campaigns.
The main problem will of course be the DNC sabotaging the non-establishment candidates again. In *that* fashion, Beto has a better chance than say, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Richard Ojeda ...
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
One of the interesting traits demonstrated by the voting public is attribution for the economy to the President. I can not tell you how many Obama haters defend Trump because the O word destroyed the economy in 08. What actually happened is monied interests had successfully watered down government's control of the financial institutions (both in law and oversight) allowing them to place gambles with the mortgage system by wrapping it up in securities. Demand for mortgages goes up to the point where anyone with a pulse can get one so as to feed the sausage factory churning out the securities. Viola, a collapse follows. The collapse happed on Bush Jrs watch but it was not all his fault. O inherited it and did the only thing any responsible person would do, he put his whole agenda on hold and devoted his life, energy and political capital to avoiding the next Great Depression.
This might have had something to do with the last savior saving us. That is not to say your points are not valid.
My point is that we are the root and placing a fancy star at the top of the tree does not change the roots or foundations. If we are willing on a large part to mortgage our houses to the hilt when the value of that house doubles for no apparent reason beyond demand to feed a bubble just so we can buy a new flat screen tv and we do not learn from the subsequent collapse, it really does not seem that a new "topper" on a tree who's roots are rotten is really going to keep the tree standing in a gale. Lots o metaphors mixed in there but you likely get the point. We need to talk to each other and get on the same page despite the influence of the Roves and Carvilles of this world.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
So I was really curious how an incompetent moron could have run through this whole Trump tower thing then end up having every body lying in concert about it. It seemed, well, just too competent.
Rudy was kind enough to add some color yesterday in his never ending attempts to lube up the truth. The story is migrating to Trump working on the tower right up to election day. Then the dog caught the bus and, OMG, we won. All hands on deck meeting; everyone lie about Russians. This is one explanation that fits the facts while being consistent with the nature of the moron at the center of everything.
Of course this is not true proven beyond a reasonable doubt written in stone on a tablet passed down from GWAD. We are just spit balling amongst friends here. I'm just trying to put together what all these clowns are saying to come up with a plausible explanation that does not attribute genius to idiots (be they useful to some or not).
It is like trying to understand why people on the other side of the pond would go to soooo much trouble with all this. I get that Putin has a thing for Hillary (like some of you folks) but there really had to be a lot more to it. Then I became aware of the $4B plus fine pending against Deutsche Bank for Russian money laundering (a roughly $500M fine was already levied by the State of NY) and it made sense. $4B is a reason to lift a finger, even if only to delay the fine by four years. The above is just one more piece in a puzzle that I'm sure the OSC has already pieced together.
Rudy was kind enough to add some color yesterday in his never ending attempts to lube up the truth. The story is migrating to Trump working on the tower right up to election day. Then the dog caught the bus and, OMG, we won. All hands on deck meeting; everyone lie about Russians. This is one explanation that fits the facts while being consistent with the nature of the moron at the center of everything.
Of course this is not true proven beyond a reasonable doubt written in stone on a tablet passed down from GWAD. We are just spit balling amongst friends here. I'm just trying to put together what all these clowns are saying to come up with a plausible explanation that does not attribute genius to idiots (be they useful to some or not).
It is like trying to understand why people on the other side of the pond would go to soooo much trouble with all this. I get that Putin has a thing for Hillary (like some of you folks) but there really had to be a lot more to it. Then I became aware of the $4B plus fine pending against Deutsche Bank for Russian money laundering (a roughly $500M fine was already levied by the State of NY) and it made sense. $4B is a reason to lift a finger, even if only to delay the fine by four years. The above is just one more piece in a puzzle that I'm sure the OSC has already pieced together.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
"Leadership is important. It can make or break any cause. Without leadership causes will die for lack of direction. That was the problem with the Occupy Movement. They were intent on being leadership free and it cost them. If someone like Ocasio-Cortez had taken control of the movement, it could have become a force in American politics, but instead it's a mostly forgotten footnote of the last decade."
Perhaps there is another way to look at this. If we change as people, we will attract and be attracted to leadership that represents that new way of thinking. Perhaps we are too focused on someone (savior) coming in to fix this for us that we have forgotten that we made this mess and it is our responsibility to clean it up.
Please do not look at the above as an attack. You do need good leadership. I'm only asking if the lack of it is the reason we are heading the way we are or if heading the way we are is the reason for the lack of it.
Perhaps there is another way to look at this. If we change as people, we will attract and be attracted to leadership that represents that new way of thinking. Perhaps we are too focused on someone (savior) coming in to fix this for us that we have forgotten that we made this mess and it is our responsibility to clean it up.
Please do not look at the above as an attack. You do need good leadership. I'm only asking if the lack of it is the reason we are heading the way we are or if heading the way we are is the reason for the lack of it.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
"Leadership is an interesting area of Psychology that is hard to nail down exactly. One person can mimic all the positions and characteristics of another and get nowhere. In this age of Trump, there have been other Republicans who have tried to mimic Trump and failed even with Trump's base. Trump is overall an awful leader, but he has an instinct of how to sell BS to a certain demographic and he is a master at it. Imitators fail trying the same thing to the same people."
People will follow their core. They do not do this at a high level in their thought process but more using the lizard brain to interpret the person they are following. Thus it is the leaders ability to understand and focus that "current state of the core" that permits her/him to lead. Identify or define the common goal(s) that resonate and then request/canjole/require those around you to pull on the rope to achieve those goals.
One of the single largest lessons I learned is that, when you are responsible for a bunch of people, you are not the big boss that just gets their way. Your sole job is to identify and remove the impediments that prevent those you work with from achieving their goals. They do not work for you; you work for them.
People will follow their core. They do not do this at a high level in their thought process but more using the lizard brain to interpret the person they are following. Thus it is the leaders ability to understand and focus that "current state of the core" that permits her/him to lead. Identify or define the common goal(s) that resonate and then request/canjole/require those around you to pull on the rope to achieve those goals.
One of the single largest lessons I learned is that, when you are responsible for a bunch of people, you are not the big boss that just gets their way. Your sole job is to identify and remove the impediments that prevent those you work with from achieving their goals. They do not work for you; you work for them.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
I've found myself ever more interested/passionate about these subjects as I see us going further off the rails. I'm typing a lot about it. Please let me know if I'm typing too much 
In this thread and almost all political discussions I have encountered I find myself remembering my undergraduate course in Greek philosophy. Then I was fascinated by The Republic; my struggle to understand it was impeded greatly by my infinitely greater struggle with the coincident course in ancient Greek. The former changed my life. The latter did not, even though I was very generously allowed to think I passed the course.
Specifically, the 'allegory of the cave'.
https://web.stanford.edu/class/ihum40/cave.pdf\
This, and the rest of The Republic, has fomented virulent debate for millennia. Personally, it seems to me that in this parable we see why people can so easy see what seems to be the identical information and still reach completely contradictory conclusions. Further, it also demonstrates the enormous cost of ignorance. Much of The Republic is devoted to advocacy of rule by the enlightened few, which itself has produced some spectacular human catastrophies. After all, who decides who is enlightened and how can they decide?
Whenever I begin to think I know just how to solve some huge problem, as in our present day, I end out rereading Plato, whereupon I conclude that honestly I probably know nothing much at all. My self-serving argument is that a lifetime of traveling and living in many countries ands cultures equip me to understand better than do most. Then, I reread. After I understand I have only experienced many caves, but seldom, if ever, seen sunlight.
Still I am quite certain that people who do not strive to always learn are likely to have bad ideas. I am quite certain that people who do not read also are likely to have bad ideas. Lastly, I am convinced that people who do not test their ideas with people with whom they often disagree will suffer the same fate.
Of course my definition of 'bad' simply means that they are likely to, if accepted, do more harm than good. Even the definitions of 'harm' and 'good' depend on context.
My am feeling humble today, but my personal views have not become weaker because of my reflection. I recall fondly William F Buckley, with whom I disagreed violently, but whose discourse always helped me learn.
Specifically, the 'allegory of the cave'.
https://web.stanford.edu/class/ihum40/cave.pdf\
This, and the rest of The Republic, has fomented virulent debate for millennia. Personally, it seems to me that in this parable we see why people can so easy see what seems to be the identical information and still reach completely contradictory conclusions. Further, it also demonstrates the enormous cost of ignorance. Much of The Republic is devoted to advocacy of rule by the enlightened few, which itself has produced some spectacular human catastrophies. After all, who decides who is enlightened and how can they decide?
Whenever I begin to think I know just how to solve some huge problem, as in our present day, I end out rereading Plato, whereupon I conclude that honestly I probably know nothing much at all. My self-serving argument is that a lifetime of traveling and living in many countries ands cultures equip me to understand better than do most. Then, I reread. After I understand I have only experienced many caves, but seldom, if ever, seen sunlight.
Still I am quite certain that people who do not strive to always learn are likely to have bad ideas. I am quite certain that people who do not read also are likely to have bad ideas. Lastly, I am convinced that people who do not test their ideas with people with whom they often disagree will suffer the same fate.
Of course my definition of 'bad' simply means that they are likely to, if accepted, do more harm than good. Even the definitions of 'harm' and 'good' depend on context.
My am feeling humble today, but my personal views have not become weaker because of my reflection. I recall fondly William F Buckley, with whom I disagreed violently, but whose discourse always helped me learn.
Sure, you're not!I've found myself ever more interested/passionate about these subjects as I see us going further off the rails. I'm typing a lot about it. Please let me know if I'm typing too much
bhtooefr
Active Member
Regarding semi-automatic weapons, as I understand, there are a couple advantages over a revolver.
Sealing of the chamber is AFAIK improved over a revolver (so it's easier to impart all of the energy to the round), and for concealed carry, a semi-automatic can be thinner and therefore easier to conceal. (Before semi-automatic handguns were practical, the usual way to get more than one round in a concealed carry handgun was to stack barrels.)
That said, myself, I'd legally consider revolvers and semi-automatic to be equivalent - the reason that various jurisdictions regulate semi-automatic firearms is because of their ability to quickly make the next shot with no manual action required to prepare the next round, and revolvers have the same effect.
Sealing of the chamber is AFAIK improved over a revolver (so it's easier to impart all of the energy to the round), and for concealed carry, a semi-automatic can be thinner and therefore easier to conceal. (Before semi-automatic handguns were practical, the usual way to get more than one round in a concealed carry handgun was to stack barrels.)
That said, myself, I'd legally consider revolvers and semi-automatic to be equivalent - the reason that various jurisdictions regulate semi-automatic firearms is because of their ability to quickly make the next shot with no manual action required to prepare the next round, and revolvers have the same effect.
"Speaking for myself", different personalities expect different things as "reasonable". Prime example was a recent Reddit post about a handicap lady who demanded the model X owner to move his car to avoid hitting her car with the falcon wing doors. Half the commenters commended the driver's accommodation of the lady's demand. The other half said that the driver should've ignored her and continued his dining.
When we don't all share the same views on what is reasonable, then we won't agree on how to govern.
When some people feel that one needs to stand their ground, and others feel you should compromise, the compromisers will always lose ground until everyone stands their ground at a line that's way off from "middle". Much like how government looks like now.
Where other countries "seem to" do better is that they have a national culture from which a consistent view of what "works" can be achieved. I thought Obama was one of our greatest presidents, but others disagreed and we're right to believe that based on their frame of reference.
So, no, I don't think democracy would work, if it weren't for the fact that it works better than other forms of government. We should probably shift more power and control to the states and local governments if the United States is to endure.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
You know what would be great - more data on gun violence. Ofcourse, Republicans don't want more data. They have banned the federal government from funding any studies on gun violence. Wonder why.
- Status
Similar threads
