Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!

[tw]

How ironic. We once had as many if not more mentally ill citizens. And did not need guns everywhere to protect kids. What changed? Suddenly everyone needs military weapons including 155 mm howitzers. After all, the solution to violence and mentally ill people is more guns - so says the NRA. Extremists will eventually demand their rights to own a howitzer. After all, the NRA says everyone should have as many assult rifles and artillery necessary to protection to protect themselves.

We have long known the only reason for increased gun violence. Well documented in history. More guns means gun violence then increases significantly. This was especially true just after the civil war and during the 1920s. Two periods where gun possession increased to record levels and was followed by increased violent death rates.

When did gun violence decrease? When the population had less guns. When guns were sold more for hunting game - not people. What did the wild west do to stop violent deaths? Everyone surrendered their guns before entering town. Facts that contradict emotions promoted by the NRA. Facts that have always been known.

Today we should have armed guards at every ATM. And National Guard with M-16s in every grocery store. Because the NRA says so. The gun industry will then give the NRA even more money.

Is the need for armed guards (that significantly reduce America's incomes and standards of living) a solution? Yes, because every teacher and child should have a gun to protect themselves. Even though history says more guns only reduce public safety. One can think like an emotional child. Or one can finally address the only reason for so much violence. 100 round clips, assault rifles, hollow point and armor piecing bullets, and an NRA that promoted the fear and violence - in the US and Mexico.

That 'big dic' thinking and the resulting hardware is the only thing that changed. As a result, violent deaths are increasing.

[ZenGum]

You'd be better off with free access to howitzers.

In the event of fighting government tyranny, they'll do a lot more good than AK47s.

In the event of a school shooting, the reload time is so long that you'd only get off one shot.

Howitzers for all!

Now, back to the donkey shagging ...

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

In the event of a school shooting, the reload time is so long that you'd only get off one shot.

According to the NRA, Adam Lanza did not have an assault weapon. He could only fire 47 rounds per minute. So he stood there for many minutes unloading between 3 and 11 rounds into each student and teacher.

With a howitzer, he could have taken out a whole class in one shot. Much better protection for all Americans.

According to the Supreme Court, we all have a right to weapons. Since the 2nd Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia," well, what could be more regulating than Adam Lanza with his 155 mm howitzer. Then he need not waste time firing NATO rounds at a paltry 47 per minute.

Then we don't have to waste good taxpayer's money on fortifying schools with sandbags and bullet proof glass. We can even save money. It is good to know the NRA is defending our interests.

If we put that howiter behind every SUV, then a kid could not be there and run over by our armoured SUV. More reasons why we should all have howitzers. To protect 30 kids per week otherwise killed by SUVs.

Who knew our forefathers had so much foresight. Of course. They were neither Democrat nor Republican. So they could actually think logically - like a patriotic American.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

How ironic. We once had as many if not more mentally ill citizens. And did not need guns everywhere to protect kids. What changed? Suddenly everyone needs military weapons including 155 mm howitzers. After all, the solution to violence and mentally ill people is more guns - so says the NRA. Extremists will eventually demand their rights to own a howitzer. After all, the NRA says everyone should have as many assult rifles and artillery necessary to protection to protect themselves.

We don't need - or have - military weapons. What we have are regular semi-automatic weapons which LOOK like military weapons. It's like you took your car, and painted it like a tank - would it BE a tank?

Why the mention of 155 howitzers? Just being sarcastic, or did you have a point?

We have long known the only reason for increased gun violence. Well documented in history. More guns means gun violence then increases significantly. This was especially true just after the civil war and during the 1920s. Two periods where gun possession increased to record levels and was followed by increased violent death rates.

Right after the Civil War we had nearly half the adult population of America, with PTSD. Either they were in the war, or they knew close friends or relatives, who were - plus the nation was being torn apart by huge social issues of slavery/abolition, and states seceding, from the Union, etc.

And at that time, no one knew about PTSD, and nothing was done to help fix that problem, or even acknowledge it existed.

Same in the 1920's - remember we had just gone through the greatest war in the world, at that time, complete with mustard gas attacks, AND were in the grips of the worst influenza outbreak (which killed more people than the war did, in total), sweeping around the world, in repeating waves.

Talk about PTSD!

When did gun violence decrease? When the population had less guns. When guns were sold more for hunting game - not people. What did the wild west do to stop violent deaths? Everyone surrendered their guns before entering town. Facts that contradict emotions promoted by the NRA. Facts that have always been known.

Before the cowboys and farmers come into town to get drunk on Friday night, yes - no guns in town, was very smart. Also, it showed in no uncertain terms that the LAW was in force in the town - which was not always the case in the wild west towns.

"There is no law west of Dodge, and no God, west of the Pecos." was the expression I recall hearing from generations, passed down.

Today we should have armed guards at every ATM. And National Guard with M-16s in every grocery store. Because the NRA says so. The gun industry will then give the NRA even more money.

Is the need for armed guards (that significantly reduce America's incomes and standards of living) a solution? Yes, because every teacher and child should have a gun to protect themselves. Even though history says more guns only reduce public safety. One can think like an emotional child. Or one can finally address the only reason for so much violence. 100 round clips, assault rifles, hollow point and armor piecing bullets, and an NRA that promoted the fear and violence - in the US and Mexico.

That 'big dic' thinking and the resulting hardware is the only thing that changed. As a result, violent deaths are increasing.

You're full of beans - violent crimes involving guns has decreased over the past 50 years, on a per capita basis, according to the FBI stats on this.

Get your facts straight, please.

We have "big dic" thinking, because we have lots of "no Dad" families, and without that influence, young men go beyond social norms in aggression. Other factors: drug problems, and on-going wars which force Dads in the service, to go overseas.

You can especially see this in the black communities. There are SO MANY families with just Mom and the kids.

I agree that civilians don't need, and shouldn't have access to:

armor piercing bullets, teflon tipped bullets (they penetrate body armor), large capacity magazines, and any caliber weapon larger than a .350 caliber.

I'm not a big game hunter, but I'm confident you could hunt an elephant successfully with a .338 Lapua or a .300 Winchester Magnum.

If you're hunting game, hollow point ammo is required. Target rounds will not kill game before it runs off.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Get your facts straight, please.

And then blames it all on families without fathers. Or PTSD because it was only recently discovered. I just can't decide which one deserves more laughter. Since no numbers can quantify something that extreme.

If you're hunting game, hollow point ammo is required.

So how did the great white hunters do so much game hunting in Africa? They did not have hollow point. Could not fire 47 rounds per minute. And managed to kill in record numbers. Well, today hollow point rounds are needed to hunt humans. Since humans are now fair game in America, we need weapons far more destructive than what great white hunters once needed. After all, hunting 1st graders may become harder than hunting elephants.

More assault weapons and hollow point bullets - to kill people - are needed.

Just using your logic (or do I need permission).

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

And then blames it all on families without fathers. Or PTSD because it was only recently discovered. I just can't decide which one deserves more laughter. Since no numbers can quantify something that extreme.

It was only recently given a NAME, but even in the old testament, soldiers returning from battle were required to spend a day or two sleeping in camp. This was to "purify" their hearts, of the blood lust.

Any adolescent counselor will tell you straight away, the problem that typically arises with males who have had no father figure in their life.

If you ever work with adolescent males, you will notice the difference very quickly - not always of course, but generally, it's apparent when the teenage boy is missing his male parent.

So how did the great white hunters do so much game hunting in Africa? They did not have hollow point. Could not fire 47 rounds per minute. And managed to kill in record numbers. Well, today hollow point rounds are needed to hunt humans. Since humans are now fair game in America, we need weapons far more destructive than what great white hunters once needed. After all, hunting 1st graders may become harder than hunting elephants.

More assault weapons and hollow point bullets - to kill people - are needed.

Just using your logic (or do I need permission).

You need to get your facts straight. Hollow point bullets were invented in the 1890's, sometimes called "Express" bullets, since they were meant for high-powered rifles which were called "Express" rifles, in those days.

With hollow point bullets you tend to kill what you hit, AND you significantly lower the chance that the bullet will pass right through the bad guy, and kill a by-stander, behind them. That's why police departments insist on hollow point bullets for their officers.

On animals, it kills quicker - allowing the hunter to locate the game, and get it out of there, before bears, lions, or packs of hyenas, come to try and take it for themselves. Also, it prevents a much slower and painful death, than regular bullets.




Before hollow point bullets were invented, the few big game hunters were pretty creative. They coated their bullets with poison, (destroyed by cooking the meat), they filed the heads of the bullet, into a more pointed shape. They took along several rifles and used backup shooters, if needed. They had a fire line put down, ready to flare up if needed, between where they were shooting, and the game. Even a wounded elephant will not run into a hefty fire line. They used the terrain - elephants and such, will not climb up even a small rocky ledge - but leopards will.

There is no such thing as "assault" rifles. Any weapon used to assault the enemy, is an assault weapon. It could be a stick, your fist, or anything else. There are short rifles, sometimes called carbines, and there are long rifles, usually just called rifles. Any weapon used for an assault, is an assault weapon, period.

Making up words to suit your version of facts, won't help your argument.

I agree with you that some types of ammo, and some types of rifles, (as noted in my previous post), should be removed from sales within the country.

But like anything else, if the law is there, it can and predictably will be, broken, by people who don't care about following the law. Those are the people we should be concerned about. Yes, it would be good to ban certain guns and ammo - but we need to also harden our schools a bit, also.

This is not the 1950's, and our country is not like the one we had in those days. We need to adapt, and we need to harden our schools - not outlaw CCW permits, gun sales, etc.

The bad guys will always have guns - look at Brevik in Norway, or Lanza in Newtown. Both found a way around the law, and worked their way into a crowd of innocent and disarmed kids and counselors/teachers.

Like shooting fish in a barrel, wouldn't you say? The kids are cornered in the classrooms at Sandy Hook, the campers in Norway are trapped on a small island.

Our kids need protection, and that's just the fact of the matter.

[Adak]

We've had a WAR On Drugs, for 40 years or more - has anyone noticed a lack of illegal drugs on the streets? Occasionally, but not for long.

We had Prohibition on Alcohol, in the 1920's - did anyone notice a lack of alcohol being available? No, people found ways around that law.

If we outlaw guns, (like Norway has done), do you believe that criminals like Brevik will NOT somehow get their hands on guns, or explosives, or other weapons?

Will people like Lanza or Spengler NOT want to kill us? Spengler left a note saying "Killing is what I like doing". He wanted to not only kill the firemen and police, but also burn down his whole neighborhood - and made a good start at both those sick goals.

What stopped Spengler from killing more than two firemen, (and wounding a few more)?

A guy with a gun started shooting BACK AT HIM! No mass slaughter here, because someone had a gun, and knew how to use it.

Quote:
Authorities do not know how Spengler obtained the Bushmaster rifle, .38-caliber revolver and 12-gauge shotgun he used, Pickering said. As a convicted felon, Spengler was not allowed to legally possess weapons.


Spengler would have killed many more people, EXCEPT a policeman shielded the wounded firemen on the ground with his car, AND SHOT BACK at SPENGLER WITH his rifle.

What have we learned today?

* Criminals don't CARE about gun laws - they will get guns or other weapons they can use against YOU.

* It behooves you to have a gun to shoot them when they try to kill you.

Apologies for boring the liberals who seem completely unable to understand this basic premise.

Here's a little lesson from nature:

Without a firearm, we are the warthog - careful, but still vulnerable, and still a victim. (not for the squeamish):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-UX0w2yA2A

Part of the above is a copy from my post in the gun control thread. Since the Democrats have been screaming for gun control, it's topical in both threads, imo.

[Adak]

In the decade of the 1950's, one out of 50 Americans were receiving food "stamps". (stamps= some food welfare assistance, from the gov't)

Today, one out of 6 receives food "stamps".

Today, 89% of all homes purchased, are done so through the federal gov't loan system.

[Lamplighter]

@Adek
... does "federal gov't loan system" mean Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac ?
(if so, you're mistaken because those loans are usually initiated by banks, mortgage companies, etc.)

... do you include the VA loans ?
... do you include the Dept of Agriculture (farm) loans ?
... do you include the WWII FHA mortgage insurance ?
Do you believe these should be eliminated ?

I admit I'm assuming your remarks are in the nature of negative criticism.
Are you being critical of the entire "federal gov't loan system",
as opposed to the mortgages held within a "private lending system" ?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

@Adek
... does "federal gov't loan system" mean Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac ?
(if so, you're mistaken because those loans are usually initiated by banks, mortgage companies, etc.)

... do you include the VA loans ?
... do you include the Dept of Agriculture (farm) loans ?
... do you include the WWII FHA mortgage insurance ?
Do you believe these should be eliminated ?

I admit I'm assuming your remarks are in the nature of negative criticism.
Are you being critical of the entire "federal gov't loan system",
as opposed to the mortgages held within a "private lending system" ?

Not being critical, atm. I know, hard to believe right? I haven't checked out all the pros and cons of this.

Just reporting an interesting factoid. It includes ALL the home loan programs that the federal gov't has, in total. No matter who is the originator, the loan will be "pigeon holed" into a specific program of the federal gov't, almost without exception. Banks and Savings and Loans, do few home loans which they will keep in-house.

Obviously, it encourages home ownership, but it's poor oversight has directly lead to the housing crisis, in the USA, and tremendous losses to investors abroad. Of course, there was massive fraud, but since when does it take 10 years (at least) for the lending agencies to detect that there is massive fraud going on, and it's threatening to bankrupt the entire agency? D'uh!

That's WHY I don't like the feds running everything - they do a poor job of things, on the whole -- some agencies of the feds notably excepted, of course.

Think about it though, if the feds can determine whether you can buy a house or not, that's a huge fulcrum to make you do any little old thing they want, when they want you to do it.

That doesn't strike me as liberty or freedom.

[Lamplighter]

<snip>That's WHY I don't like the feds running everything
- they do a poor job of things, on the whole
-- some agencies of the feds notably excepted, of course.

Think about it though, if the feds can determine whether you can buy a house or not,
that's a huge fulcrum to make you do any little old thing they want, when they want you to do it.

That doesn't strike me as liberty or freedom.

Throwing the words "liberty" and "freedom" around in such a manner cheapens them.
It's an just an attempt to get a knee-jerk approval from certain audiences.

The feds are not determining whether you can buy a house or not.
It is the lender for the mortgage that makes that determination.
(Of course you can pay cash, do a 1031 exchange, etc. ... but then it is the seller)

Most all of the fed programs only set the limits on which mortgages
they will buy back from the lender (bank, S&L, etc).
Yes, they do have a [sic fulcrum] lever on the lender,
but it's the lender that sets the boundaries on your mortgage.

I suspect your age is such that you may have bought a house
that entailed a FHA mortgage guarantee (to the lender).
If so, an appraiser would have visited the property and written a report
detailing where it did or did not met current minimum construction standards,
and set a maximum (insured loan) value on the property.

That appraisal was for you, the Buyer. It was then your "freedom" to decide
if you wanted to legally back away from the deal, or to proceed with closing.
This was a huge lever for the Buyer.
That program was folded into HUD, and so it is no longer so much in public view.

The FHA program has had an enormous impact on the quality of housing,
both single family and multi-family through out the US.
That federal program, alone, deserves more credit that you allow
in your blanket statements condemnation of federal agencies.

Maybe your apparent despair over loss of freedom and liberty is actually misdirected,
and should be towards the Wall Street banking and insurance industries.
But then that might make you want to join in a Occupy Wallstreet parade.

[Clodfobble]

It's also worth noting that since Fannie Mae had such economic problems during the housing crash, they have been deliberately buying up very good loans in order to balance their books and get a solid business model working again. We received notification awhile back that our loan had been purchased by Fannie Mae (though it would continue to be serviced by our current mortgage holder, not sure how that works,) and we have excellent credit. The fact that our loan is owned by them is in no way an indication that our loan is on assistance from the government.

[Adak]

Every conservative is upset with how Wall St. has been able to skirt their fiduciary obligations with these sub prime loan "bundles" they were selling -- all the while "shorting" them because they knew they were crap.

And the derivatives! That's just about the same as casino gambling, imo. The occupy crowd were largely paid to be there, and reminded me way too much of dirty hippies - and not even likable dirty hippies. I thought their "Mic check" chanting was pretty good though! Really hilarious.

[Adak]

So Tim Geitner has reported to Congress that the nation will be out of money on Jan. 1, 2013.

I wonder if the Democrats just plan on over-spending until Hell freezes over, or will they come to their senses.

Because raising some taxes on the wealthy, is maybe going to give us another 10 days or so of spending at our current rate. It will NOT let us keep spending like we are now, throughout the year - no way.

Just like you and I have to balance our income and expenses, our country has to do it EVENTUALLY. All the hot air and hand waving and blame gaming in the world, will only delay it, AND make our debt even deeper.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

And the derivatives! That's just about the same as casino gambling, imo. The occupy crowd were largely paid to be there.....

Let's not get into which grassroots groups were really astroturfing. Especially not since Dick Army's $8 million buy off from the tea party.

I agree with you on derivatives. Securitization, the basic bundling of mortgages, served a purpose by widening participation and spreading risk, useful tools in banking and insurance. However, at some point it stopped being about efficiency and ended up as essentially a numbers racket.

The Financial_Services_Modernization Act of 1999 was passed with a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. It's defenders do not believe that it is in any way responsible for the 2007 meltdown, but it's repeal of parts of Glass-Steagall, a law based on lessons learned from the Great Depression, was troubling. The passed was bipartisan, although more Democrats opposed it than Republicans.

The real culprit may have been the 2000 passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which took away all state and local 'bucket shop' laws against derivatives, which was another lesson learned from the Great Depression. At that point it was as if someone opened a floating crap game in the corner of every securities market in the US.