|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 18 2013 03:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 02:30 kmillz wrote:On January 17 2013 19:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 17 2013 18:41 Teykila wrote:On February 20 2012 03:09 Rainofpain wrote:
I think about it like this: If I want to get a gun to use it for a murder or something, do I really care if I am allowed to use it or not? Gun controls make it harder for the average citizen to obtain a defensive weapon that is effective and not too hard to use/take time to learn. Don't you realise that these large killing were perpetrated by an "average citizen" ? It's not the people who are capable of finding arms illegally (robbers, gangs, drugs dealers) who killed all those people in schools and theaters! I never understood why in the US there is the right to carry weapons without a permit. But i am not from the US so i admit that is why i might not understand. Anyway, after seeing all these killings, you should at least realise that assault weapons should be banned. Why in the hell an assault rifle is considered as a self defense weapon???? Do you prefer killing someone or beeing killed than being robbed? That is something i cannot understand. Nobody should. There is a huge lobby, the NRA, and phenomenal financial interest behind. Without any control over what can be said or not and how much money you can pour into lobbying and electoral support, you can make people believe that 2+2=5, that automatic weapons in free circulation is the solution and not the problem in those killing or that the least taxes for millionaire, the better for the average joe. Since in America, any control over public speech or any attempt to limitate the power of money over the public sphere is seen as a terrible attack on """""freedom""""", we can safely say that not only it is the most structurally corrupt and disfunctionnal of all democracies but also that public opinion doesn't mean much more anymore, and is just the reflection of financial interests. I mean, come on, some people here are talking of the need to have their weapon for when society will have collapsed. You know, zombie apocalypse is also on the table and you might realize that at this point of paranoia and irrationality by the average voter, your democracy is screwed up. My two cents. Because the huge lobbying doesn't go both ways.....last time I checked this country is pretty split in half on most big issues, gun control being one of them (although I've also read that it's skewed to appear that more people believe in gun control than actually do). Either way, it blows my mind everytime someone says some shit like we need more restrictions on speech! We need more restrictions on guns! As if that has ever been proven to work. You think limiting the power of money over the public sphere (restricting free speech) is going to make the public opinion heard more? I don't buy it. Simple as that: there are people who have financial interests into selling guns and are just flooding the political stage with money, and the mediatic stage with propaganda that they only can afford.
Nobody in the private sector will spend hundreds of million convincing people guns are bad because nobody has financial interests to do so.As for "freedom", the "freedom" to spend as much money as you want to support a candidate or a party is called freedom to corrupt in my book. If we consider corruption as the collusion between politics and private interest which is the basic definition. And freedom to use a huge propaganda machine lying day after day after day after day in the most obvious way to serve your corporate interest (hi Fox News) is the freedom for the most uneducated people in the country to be brainwashed every day of their live.See, imo the problem is that with money you can buy anything in the States. You can buy public opinion, even if what you are claiming is just as fucking stupid as 2+2=5 (or that more guns will solve the problem of those killings), and you can buy politicians since their campaign is financed by private money anyway and that there are no restriction on lobbying. In most democracies, Fox News would be basically closed after a week of airing. And no billionaire and corporation could basically buy an election or an amendment in the senate. For me it's the basis of a functional democracy.
Both sides lie constantly. It isn't just the Right that lies and spreads propaganda nonsense, the Left does too. The news media stands to make too much money off conflict. They don't care which side is correct, or which side wins, just that they have the highest ratings. That's why you have Piers Morgan bringing Alex Jones on for a gun control debate, and it's why Fox acts like Obama's the devil. Conflict and insanity gets higher ratings than logical discussion.
There is just as much lobbying done by the Left as by the NRA, and to say there isn't is either misinformed or willfully negligent.
The Left claims some pretty stupid things too. Like "Assault Weapons" being a thing, or civilians having Military grade weapons. The AR15 and the Mini-14 are almost the same gun. They fire the same cartridge, at the same rate. But the AR15 is painted black, so the media can easily convince the uninformed that it's somehow more dangerous than the Mini-14.
|
On January 18 2013 03:28 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 18 2013 02:30 kmillz wrote:On January 17 2013 19:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 17 2013 18:41 Teykila wrote:On February 20 2012 03:09 Rainofpain wrote:
I think about it like this: If I want to get a gun to use it for a murder or something, do I really care if I am allowed to use it or not? Gun controls make it harder for the average citizen to obtain a defensive weapon that is effective and not too hard to use/take time to learn. Don't you realise that these large killing were perpetrated by an "average citizen" ? It's not the people who are capable of finding arms illegally (robbers, gangs, drugs dealers) who killed all those people in schools and theaters! I never understood why in the US there is the right to carry weapons without a permit. But i am not from the US so i admit that is why i might not understand. Anyway, after seeing all these killings, you should at least realise that assault weapons should be banned. Why in the hell an assault rifle is considered as a self defense weapon???? Do you prefer killing someone or beeing killed than being robbed? That is something i cannot understand. Nobody should. There is a huge lobby, the NRA, and phenomenal financial interest behind. Without any control over what can be said or not and how much money you can pour into lobbying and electoral support, you can make people believe that 2+2=5, that automatic weapons in free circulation is the solution and not the problem in those killing or that the least taxes for millionaire, the better for the average joe. Since in America, any control over public speech or any attempt to limitate the power of money over the public sphere is seen as a terrible attack on """""freedom""""", we can safely say that not only it is the most structurally corrupt and disfunctionnal of all democracies but also that public opinion doesn't mean much more anymore, and is just the reflection of financial interests. I mean, come on, some people here are talking of the need to have their weapon for when society will have collapsed. You know, zombie apocalypse is also on the table and you might realize that at this point of paranoia and irrationality by the average voter, your democracy is screwed up. My two cents. Because the huge lobbying doesn't go both ways.....last time I checked this country is pretty split in half on most big issues, gun control being one of them (although I've also read that it's skewed to appear that more people believe in gun control than actually do). Either way, it blows my mind everytime someone says some shit like we need more restrictions on speech! We need more restrictions on guns! As if that has ever been proven to work. You think limiting the power of money over the public sphere (restricting free speech) is going to make the public opinion heard more? I don't buy it. Simple as that: there are people who have financial interests into selling guns and are just flooding the political stage with money, and the mediatic stage with propaganda that they only can afford.
Nobody in the private sector will spend hundreds of million convincing people guns are bad because nobody has financial interests to do so.As for "freedom", the "freedom" to spend as much money as you want to support a candidate or a party is called freedom to corrupt in my book. If we consider corruption as the collusion between politics and private interest which is the basic definition. And freedom to use a huge propaganda machine lying day after day after day after day in the most obvious way to serve your corporate interest (hi Fox News) is the freedom for the most uneducated people in the country to be brainwashed every day of their live.See, imo the problem is that with money you can buy anything in the States. You can buy public opinion, even if what you are claiming is just as fucking stupid as 2+2=5 (or that more guns will solve the problem of those killings), and you can buy politicians since their campaign is financed by private money anyway and that there are no restriction on lobbying. In most democracies, Fox News would be basically closed after a week of airing. And no billionaire and corporation could basically buy an election or an amendment in the senate. For me it's the basis of a functional democracy. Both sides lie constantly. It isn't just the Right that lies and spreads propaganda nonsense, the Left does too. The news media stands to make too much money off conflict. They don't care which side is correct, or which side wins, just that they have the highest ratings. That's why you have Piers Morgan bringing Alex Jones on for a gun control debate, and it's why Fox acts like Obama's the devil. Conflict and insanity gets higher ratings than logical discussion. There is just as much lobbying done by the Left as by the NRA, and to say there isn't is either misinformed or willfully negligent. The Left claims some pretty stupid things too. Like "Assault Weapons" being a thing, or civilians having Military grade weapons. The AR15 and the Mini-14 are almost the same gun. They fire the same cartridge, at the same rate. But the AR15 is painted black, so the media can easily convince the uninformed that it's somehow more dangerous than the Mini-14.
Here is a brief rundown of the NRA's lobbying activities, all of which are dedicated towards, presumably, the lessening of government control over gun regulation. Find me a liberal lobby that spends anything close to this on anti-gun efforts.
|
On January 18 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:28 Millitron wrote:On January 18 2013 03:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 18 2013 02:30 kmillz wrote:On January 17 2013 19:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 17 2013 18:41 Teykila wrote:On February 20 2012 03:09 Rainofpain wrote:
I think about it like this: If I want to get a gun to use it for a murder or something, do I really care if I am allowed to use it or not? Gun controls make it harder for the average citizen to obtain a defensive weapon that is effective and not too hard to use/take time to learn. Don't you realise that these large killing were perpetrated by an "average citizen" ? It's not the people who are capable of finding arms illegally (robbers, gangs, drugs dealers) who killed all those people in schools and theaters! I never understood why in the US there is the right to carry weapons without a permit. But i am not from the US so i admit that is why i might not understand. Anyway, after seeing all these killings, you should at least realise that assault weapons should be banned. Why in the hell an assault rifle is considered as a self defense weapon???? Do you prefer killing someone or beeing killed than being robbed? That is something i cannot understand. Nobody should. There is a huge lobby, the NRA, and phenomenal financial interest behind. Without any control over what can be said or not and how much money you can pour into lobbying and electoral support, you can make people believe that 2+2=5, that automatic weapons in free circulation is the solution and not the problem in those killing or that the least taxes for millionaire, the better for the average joe. Since in America, any control over public speech or any attempt to limitate the power of money over the public sphere is seen as a terrible attack on """""freedom""""", we can safely say that not only it is the most structurally corrupt and disfunctionnal of all democracies but also that public opinion doesn't mean much more anymore, and is just the reflection of financial interests. I mean, come on, some people here are talking of the need to have their weapon for when society will have collapsed. You know, zombie apocalypse is also on the table and you might realize that at this point of paranoia and irrationality by the average voter, your democracy is screwed up. My two cents. Because the huge lobbying doesn't go both ways.....last time I checked this country is pretty split in half on most big issues, gun control being one of them (although I've also read that it's skewed to appear that more people believe in gun control than actually do). Either way, it blows my mind everytime someone says some shit like we need more restrictions on speech! We need more restrictions on guns! As if that has ever been proven to work. You think limiting the power of money over the public sphere (restricting free speech) is going to make the public opinion heard more? I don't buy it. Simple as that: there are people who have financial interests into selling guns and are just flooding the political stage with money, and the mediatic stage with propaganda that they only can afford.
Nobody in the private sector will spend hundreds of million convincing people guns are bad because nobody has financial interests to do so.As for "freedom", the "freedom" to spend as much money as you want to support a candidate or a party is called freedom to corrupt in my book. If we consider corruption as the collusion between politics and private interest which is the basic definition. And freedom to use a huge propaganda machine lying day after day after day after day in the most obvious way to serve your corporate interest (hi Fox News) is the freedom for the most uneducated people in the country to be brainwashed every day of their live.See, imo the problem is that with money you can buy anything in the States. You can buy public opinion, even if what you are claiming is just as fucking stupid as 2+2=5 (or that more guns will solve the problem of those killings), and you can buy politicians since their campaign is financed by private money anyway and that there are no restriction on lobbying. In most democracies, Fox News would be basically closed after a week of airing. And no billionaire and corporation could basically buy an election or an amendment in the senate. For me it's the basis of a functional democracy. Both sides lie constantly. It isn't just the Right that lies and spreads propaganda nonsense, the Left does too. The news media stands to make too much money off conflict. They don't care which side is correct, or which side wins, just that they have the highest ratings. That's why you have Piers Morgan bringing Alex Jones on for a gun control debate, and it's why Fox acts like Obama's the devil. Conflict and insanity gets higher ratings than logical discussion. There is just as much lobbying done by the Left as by the NRA, and to say there isn't is either misinformed or willfully negligent. The Left claims some pretty stupid things too. Like "Assault Weapons" being a thing, or civilians having Military grade weapons. The AR15 and the Mini-14 are almost the same gun. They fire the same cartridge, at the same rate. But the AR15 is painted black, so the media can easily convince the uninformed that it's somehow more dangerous than the Mini-14. Here is a brief rundown of the NRA's lobbying activities, all of which are dedicated towards, presumably, the lessening of government control over gun regulation. Find me a liberal lobby that spends anything close to this on anti-gun efforts.
That's not the strategy the liberal lobby uses though. They prefer to control the media. You don't have to buy the politicians if you can fool the people who elect them. Have you seen the sheer level of ignorance the news media passes off as "Journalism"? They get people like Piers Morgan, Chris Matthews, and Jesse Jackson to convince people that "Assault Weapons" are actual things, that there's an actual functional difference between them and other rifles that aren't painted black. They act like having magazines that hold more than a single shot is new, extremely dangerous technology. They act like semi-automatic rifles are used in a substantial number of crimes. None of those things are true. Yet simply by saying it loud enough and frequently enough, they've convinced a lot of people that "Assault Weapons" are some new, scourge.
Civilians have been buying AR15's since the 70's. They've had other semi-auto rifles since the 50's. They've had semi-auto handguns since the 20's. Semi-automatic weapons that hold more than a couple of shells are not a new thing in the civilian market. They were never a problem before, so why now?
I'm not saying the Right is any better, they aren't. They just have a different method of lying.
|
1019 Posts
On January 18 2013 03:28 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 18 2013 02:30 kmillz wrote:On January 17 2013 19:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 17 2013 18:41 Teykila wrote:On February 20 2012 03:09 Rainofpain wrote:
I think about it like this: If I want to get a gun to use it for a murder or something, do I really care if I am allowed to use it or not? Gun controls make it harder for the average citizen to obtain a defensive weapon that is effective and not too hard to use/take time to learn. Don't you realise that these large killing were perpetrated by an "average citizen" ? It's not the people who are capable of finding arms illegally (robbers, gangs, drugs dealers) who killed all those people in schools and theaters! I never understood why in the US there is the right to carry weapons without a permit. But i am not from the US so i admit that is why i might not understand. Anyway, after seeing all these killings, you should at least realise that assault weapons should be banned. Why in the hell an assault rifle is considered as a self defense weapon???? Do you prefer killing someone or beeing killed than being robbed? That is something i cannot understand. Nobody should. There is a huge lobby, the NRA, and phenomenal financial interest behind. Without any control over what can be said or not and how much money you can pour into lobbying and electoral support, you can make people believe that 2+2=5, that automatic weapons in free circulation is the solution and not the problem in those killing or that the least taxes for millionaire, the better for the average joe. Since in America, any control over public speech or any attempt to limitate the power of money over the public sphere is seen as a terrible attack on """""freedom""""", we can safely say that not only it is the most structurally corrupt and disfunctionnal of all democracies but also that public opinion doesn't mean much more anymore, and is just the reflection of financial interests. I mean, come on, some people here are talking of the need to have their weapon for when society will have collapsed. You know, zombie apocalypse is also on the table and you might realize that at this point of paranoia and irrationality by the average voter, your democracy is screwed up. My two cents. Because the huge lobbying doesn't go both ways.....last time I checked this country is pretty split in half on most big issues, gun control being one of them (although I've also read that it's skewed to appear that more people believe in gun control than actually do). Either way, it blows my mind everytime someone says some shit like we need more restrictions on speech! We need more restrictions on guns! As if that has ever been proven to work. You think limiting the power of money over the public sphere (restricting free speech) is going to make the public opinion heard more? I don't buy it. Simple as that: there are people who have financial interests into selling guns and are just flooding the political stage with money, and the mediatic stage with propaganda that they only can afford.
Nobody in the private sector will spend hundreds of million convincing people guns are bad because nobody has financial interests to do so.As for "freedom", the "freedom" to spend as much money as you want to support a candidate or a party is called freedom to corrupt in my book. If we consider corruption as the collusion between politics and private interest which is the basic definition. And freedom to use a huge propaganda machine lying day after day after day after day in the most obvious way to serve your corporate interest (hi Fox News) is the freedom for the most uneducated people in the country to be brainwashed every day of their live.See, imo the problem is that with money you can buy anything in the States. You can buy public opinion, even if what you are claiming is just as fucking stupid as 2+2=5 (or that more guns will solve the problem of those killings), and you can buy politicians since their campaign is financed by private money anyway and that there are no restriction on lobbying. In most democracies, Fox News would be basically closed after a week of airing. And no billionaire and corporation could basically buy an election or an amendment in the senate. For me it's the basis of a functional democracy. Both sides lie constantly. It isn't just the Right that lies and spreads propaganda nonsense, the Left does too. The news media stands to make too much money off conflict. They don't care which side is correct, or which side wins, just that they have the highest ratings. That's why you have Piers Morgan bringing Alex Jones on for a gun control debate, and it's why Fox acts like Obama's the devil. Conflict and insanity gets higher ratings than logical discussion. There is just as much lobbying done by the Left as by the NRA, and to say there isn't is either misinformed or willfully negligent. The Left claims some pretty stupid things too. Like "Assault Weapons" being a thing, or civilians having Military grade weapons. The AR15 and the Mini-14 are almost the same gun. They fire the same cartridge, at the same rate. But the AR15 is painted black, so the media can easily convince the uninformed that it's somehow more dangerous than the Mini-14.
lol please. There is a gun control lobby as big as the NRA? You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. If there was a political organization as influential as the NRA but bent on gun control, this country wouldn't have had ultra-lax gun laws in the first place.
Also, alex jones represents the fringe of the pro-gun group. The problem is that there are many people as childish and fanatic as he is, and even more who are only one or two degrees below him. The gun rights lobby is extreme on a cult-like level. Tell me one thing in this world where being extreme is good for yourself and for the other people around you. There isn't.
|
On January 18 2013 03:57 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 03:28 Millitron wrote:On January 18 2013 03:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 18 2013 02:30 kmillz wrote:On January 17 2013 19:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 17 2013 18:41 Teykila wrote:On February 20 2012 03:09 Rainofpain wrote:
I think about it like this: If I want to get a gun to use it for a murder or something, do I really care if I am allowed to use it or not? Gun controls make it harder for the average citizen to obtain a defensive weapon that is effective and not too hard to use/take time to learn. Don't you realise that these large killing were perpetrated by an "average citizen" ? It's not the people who are capable of finding arms illegally (robbers, gangs, drugs dealers) who killed all those people in schools and theaters! I never understood why in the US there is the right to carry weapons without a permit. But i am not from the US so i admit that is why i might not understand. Anyway, after seeing all these killings, you should at least realise that assault weapons should be banned. Why in the hell an assault rifle is considered as a self defense weapon???? Do you prefer killing someone or beeing killed than being robbed? That is something i cannot understand. Nobody should. There is a huge lobby, the NRA, and phenomenal financial interest behind. Without any control over what can be said or not and how much money you can pour into lobbying and electoral support, you can make people believe that 2+2=5, that automatic weapons in free circulation is the solution and not the problem in those killing or that the least taxes for millionaire, the better for the average joe. Since in America, any control over public speech or any attempt to limitate the power of money over the public sphere is seen as a terrible attack on """""freedom""""", we can safely say that not only it is the most structurally corrupt and disfunctionnal of all democracies but also that public opinion doesn't mean much more anymore, and is just the reflection of financial interests. I mean, come on, some people here are talking of the need to have their weapon for when society will have collapsed. You know, zombie apocalypse is also on the table and you might realize that at this point of paranoia and irrationality by the average voter, your democracy is screwed up. My two cents. Because the huge lobbying doesn't go both ways.....last time I checked this country is pretty split in half on most big issues, gun control being one of them (although I've also read that it's skewed to appear that more people believe in gun control than actually do). Either way, it blows my mind everytime someone says some shit like we need more restrictions on speech! We need more restrictions on guns! As if that has ever been proven to work. You think limiting the power of money over the public sphere (restricting free speech) is going to make the public opinion heard more? I don't buy it. Simple as that: there are people who have financial interests into selling guns and are just flooding the political stage with money, and the mediatic stage with propaganda that they only can afford.
Nobody in the private sector will spend hundreds of million convincing people guns are bad because nobody has financial interests to do so.As for "freedom", the "freedom" to spend as much money as you want to support a candidate or a party is called freedom to corrupt in my book. If we consider corruption as the collusion between politics and private interest which is the basic definition. And freedom to use a huge propaganda machine lying day after day after day after day in the most obvious way to serve your corporate interest (hi Fox News) is the freedom for the most uneducated people in the country to be brainwashed every day of their live.See, imo the problem is that with money you can buy anything in the States. You can buy public opinion, even if what you are claiming is just as fucking stupid as 2+2=5 (or that more guns will solve the problem of those killings), and you can buy politicians since their campaign is financed by private money anyway and that there are no restriction on lobbying. In most democracies, Fox News would be basically closed after a week of airing. And no billionaire and corporation could basically buy an election or an amendment in the senate. For me it's the basis of a functional democracy. Both sides lie constantly. It isn't just the Right that lies and spreads propaganda nonsense, the Left does too. The news media stands to make too much money off conflict. They don't care which side is correct, or which side wins, just that they have the highest ratings. That's why you have Piers Morgan bringing Alex Jones on for a gun control debate, and it's why Fox acts like Obama's the devil. Conflict and insanity gets higher ratings than logical discussion. There is just as much lobbying done by the Left as by the NRA, and to say there isn't is either misinformed or willfully negligent. The Left claims some pretty stupid things too. Like "Assault Weapons" being a thing, or civilians having Military grade weapons. The AR15 and the Mini-14 are almost the same gun. They fire the same cartridge, at the same rate. But the AR15 is painted black, so the media can easily convince the uninformed that it's somehow more dangerous than the Mini-14. Here is a brief rundown of the NRA's lobbying activities, all of which are dedicated towards, presumably, the lessening of government control over gun regulation. Find me a liberal lobby that spends anything close to this on anti-gun efforts. That's not the strategy the liberal lobby uses though. They prefer to control the media. You don't have to buy the politicians if you can fool the people who elect them. Have you seen the sheer level of ignorance the news media passes off as "Journalism"? They get people like Piers Morgan, Chris Matthews, and Jesse Jackson to convince people that "Assault Weapons" are actual things, that there's an actual functional difference between them and other rifles that aren't painted black. They act like having magazines that hold more than a single shot is new, extremely dangerous technology. They act like semi-automatic rifles are used in a substantial number of crimes. None of those things are true. Yet simply by saying it loud enough and frequently enough, they've convinced a lot of people that "Assault Weapons" are some new, scourge. Civilians have been buying AR15's since the 70's. They've had other semi-auto rifles since the 50's. They've had semi-auto handguns since the 20's. Semi-automatic weapons that hold more than a couple of shells are not a new thing in the civilian market. They were never a problem before, so why now?
Except they do not control the media, and the Fox News channel's popularity is a direct testament to that. Sure, a fair bit of demagoguery on the part of the liberals takes place in media presentation of information, but that is no substitute for straight up cash influence. So, the media presents the public with both perspectives, albeit in a very hackneyed and incomplete manner through the likes of MSNBC and Fox News. However, where is the liberal opposition to gun control in lobby dollars?
|
I don't really get it.. Is this really a such an important discussion? I mean ... I've never seen a gun in my life... or even heard a story including a gun. I couldn't even think of a situation, where a gun would seem useful.
For my point of view people waste their focus on an extremely theoretical topic, while the american economy is on the verge of a new economic crisis because of dept problems.
|
On January 18 2013 04:36 Napoleon53 wrote:
I don't really get it.. Is this really a such an important discussion? I mean ... I've never seen a gun in my life... or even heard a story including a gun. I couldn't even think of a situation, where a gun would seem useful.
For my point of view people waste their focus on an extremely theoretical topic, while the american economy is on the verge of a new economic crisis because of dept problems.
Are you just being willfully ignorant? You have never heard a single story of a crime committed with a gun? I'm assuming that's hyperbole, because otherwise you must be living under a rock.
Public perception is that violent crime with guns, especially of the mass shooting variety, has been increasing in the U.S. It's an understandable line of thought to equate that with the gun laws in this country. It doesn't mean that it's correct, but it's understandable. While the U.S. has other crises, like the economy, there is no reason people can't also be attempting to lower the rate of violent crime. If we, as a country, are only able to focus on one problem at a time, we've got much deeper issues than violence or economic crises (and I'm afraid we do).
|
|
|
On January 18 2013 04:47 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 04:36 Napoleon53 wrote:
I don't really get it.. Is this really a such an important discussion? I mean ... I've never seen a gun in my life... or even heard a story including a gun. I couldn't even think of a situation, where a gun would seem useful.
For my point of view people waste their focus on an extremely theoretical topic, while the american economy is on the verge of a new economic crisis because of dept problems. Are you just being willfully ignorant? You have never heard a single story of a crime committed with a gun? I'm assuming that's hyperbole, because otherwise you must be living under a rock. Public perception is that violent crime with guns, especially of the mass shooting variety, has been increasing in the U.S. It's an understandable line of thought to equate that with the gun laws in this country. It doesn't mean that it's correct, but it's understandable. While the U.S. has other crises, like the economy, there is no reason people can't also be attempting to lower the rate of violent crime. If we, as a country, are only able to focus on one problem at a time, we've got much deeper issues than violence or economic crises (and I'm afraid we do).
Oh ya sorry.. Wasn't beeing precise. Of course I've heard news-story including guns. But I mean I've never heard storys from my friends or anyone in real life.
And it's not like I think its wrong to discus this topic, but I just think it's getting waay too much attention (almost all attention?). As far as I am concerned there is MUCH more talking about the "guns issue" than the economic crisis, eventhough the economics potentially could be extremely influential for everyone.
Maybe it's just the Danish media.
|
On January 18 2013 04:03 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:57 Millitron wrote:On January 18 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 03:28 Millitron wrote:On January 18 2013 03:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 18 2013 02:30 kmillz wrote:On January 17 2013 19:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 17 2013 18:41 Teykila wrote:On February 20 2012 03:09 Rainofpain wrote:
I think about it like this: If I want to get a gun to use it for a murder or something, do I really care if I am allowed to use it or not? Gun controls make it harder for the average citizen to obtain a defensive weapon that is effective and not too hard to use/take time to learn. Don't you realise that these large killing were perpetrated by an "average citizen" ? It's not the people who are capable of finding arms illegally (robbers, gangs, drugs dealers) who killed all those people in schools and theaters! I never understood why in the US there is the right to carry weapons without a permit. But i am not from the US so i admit that is why i might not understand. Anyway, after seeing all these killings, you should at least realise that assault weapons should be banned. Why in the hell an assault rifle is considered as a self defense weapon???? Do you prefer killing someone or beeing killed than being robbed? That is something i cannot understand. Nobody should. There is a huge lobby, the NRA, and phenomenal financial interest behind. Without any control over what can be said or not and how much money you can pour into lobbying and electoral support, you can make people believe that 2+2=5, that automatic weapons in free circulation is the solution and not the problem in those killing or that the least taxes for millionaire, the better for the average joe. Since in America, any control over public speech or any attempt to limitate the power of money over the public sphere is seen as a terrible attack on """""freedom""""", we can safely say that not only it is the most structurally corrupt and disfunctionnal of all democracies but also that public opinion doesn't mean much more anymore, and is just the reflection of financial interests. I mean, come on, some people here are talking of the need to have their weapon for when society will have collapsed. You know, zombie apocalypse is also on the table and you might realize that at this point of paranoia and irrationality by the average voter, your democracy is screwed up. My two cents. Because the huge lobbying doesn't go both ways.....last time I checked this country is pretty split in half on most big issues, gun control being one of them (although I've also read that it's skewed to appear that more people believe in gun control than actually do). Either way, it blows my mind everytime someone says some shit like we need more restrictions on speech! We need more restrictions on guns! As if that has ever been proven to work. You think limiting the power of money over the public sphere (restricting free speech) is going to make the public opinion heard more? I don't buy it. Simple as that: there are people who have financial interests into selling guns and are just flooding the political stage with money, and the mediatic stage with propaganda that they only can afford.
Nobody in the private sector will spend hundreds of million convincing people guns are bad because nobody has financial interests to do so.As for "freedom", the "freedom" to spend as much money as you want to support a candidate or a party is called freedom to corrupt in my book. If we consider corruption as the collusion between politics and private interest which is the basic definition. And freedom to use a huge propaganda machine lying day after day after day after day in the most obvious way to serve your corporate interest (hi Fox News) is the freedom for the most uneducated people in the country to be brainwashed every day of their live.See, imo the problem is that with money you can buy anything in the States. You can buy public opinion, even if what you are claiming is just as fucking stupid as 2+2=5 (or that more guns will solve the problem of those killings), and you can buy politicians since their campaign is financed by private money anyway and that there are no restriction on lobbying. In most democracies, Fox News would be basically closed after a week of airing. And no billionaire and corporation could basically buy an election or an amendment in the senate. For me it's the basis of a functional democracy. Both sides lie constantly. It isn't just the Right that lies and spreads propaganda nonsense, the Left does too. The news media stands to make too much money off conflict. They don't care which side is correct, or which side wins, just that they have the highest ratings. That's why you have Piers Morgan bringing Alex Jones on for a gun control debate, and it's why Fox acts like Obama's the devil. Conflict and insanity gets higher ratings than logical discussion. There is just as much lobbying done by the Left as by the NRA, and to say there isn't is either misinformed or willfully negligent. The Left claims some pretty stupid things too. Like "Assault Weapons" being a thing, or civilians having Military grade weapons. The AR15 and the Mini-14 are almost the same gun. They fire the same cartridge, at the same rate. But the AR15 is painted black, so the media can easily convince the uninformed that it's somehow more dangerous than the Mini-14. Here is a brief rundown of the NRA's lobbying activities, all of which are dedicated towards, presumably, the lessening of government control over gun regulation. Find me a liberal lobby that spends anything close to this on anti-gun efforts. That's not the strategy the liberal lobby uses though. They prefer to control the media. You don't have to buy the politicians if you can fool the people who elect them. Have you seen the sheer level of ignorance the news media passes off as "Journalism"? They get people like Piers Morgan, Chris Matthews, and Jesse Jackson to convince people that "Assault Weapons" are actual things, that there's an actual functional difference between them and other rifles that aren't painted black. They act like having magazines that hold more than a single shot is new, extremely dangerous technology. They act like semi-automatic rifles are used in a substantial number of crimes. None of those things are true. Yet simply by saying it loud enough and frequently enough, they've convinced a lot of people that "Assault Weapons" are some new, scourge. Civilians have been buying AR15's since the 70's. They've had other semi-auto rifles since the 50's. They've had semi-auto handguns since the 20's. Semi-automatic weapons that hold more than a couple of shells are not a new thing in the civilian market. They were never a problem before, so why now? Except they do not control the media, and the Fox News channel's popularity is a direct testament to that. Sure, a fair bit of demagoguery on the part of the liberals takes place in media presentation of information, but that is no substitute for straight up cash influence. So, the media presents the public with both perspectives, albeit in a very hackneyed and incomplete manner through the likes of MSNBC and Fox News. However, where is the liberal opposition to gun control in lobby dollars?
I'm not sure why you are convinced it must be in lobby dollars. There are not as many anti-gun lobby dollars because it's unnecessary. When you have Hollywood actors (notice, no one from Hollywood was called to Washington, only game makers) as well as the majority of new outlets, you don't need it. It would look really bad if MSNBC had lobbyists, they have to at least maintain the charade of moderation. it wasn't the "gun lobby" that brought all this up after the accident, it was the ANTI-gun groups (and probably many leftist leaders, including Obama). They have plenty of influence, enough for 23 congress-ignoring actions.
|
United States24569 Posts
On January 18 2013 05:01 Napoleon53 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 04:47 ZasZ. wrote:On January 18 2013 04:36 Napoleon53 wrote:
I don't really get it.. Is this really a such an important discussion? I mean ... I've never seen a gun in my life... or even heard a story including a gun. I couldn't even think of a situation, where a gun would seem useful.
For my point of view people waste their focus on an extremely theoretical topic, while the american economy is on the verge of a new economic crisis because of dept problems. Are you just being willfully ignorant? You have never heard a single story of a crime committed with a gun? I'm assuming that's hyperbole, because otherwise you must be living under a rock. Public perception is that violent crime with guns, especially of the mass shooting variety, has been increasing in the U.S. It's an understandable line of thought to equate that with the gun laws in this country. It doesn't mean that it's correct, but it's understandable. While the U.S. has other crises, like the economy, there is no reason people can't also be attempting to lower the rate of violent crime. If we, as a country, are only able to focus on one problem at a time, we've got much deeper issues than violence or economic crises (and I'm afraid we do). Oh ya sorry.. Wasn't beeing precise. Of course I've heard news-story including guns. But I mean I've never heard storys from my friends or anyone in real life. And it's not like I think its wrong to discus this topic, but I just think it's getting waay too much attention (almost all attention?). As far as I am concerned there is MUCH more talking about the "guns issue" than the economic crisis, eventhough the economics potentially could be extremely influential for everyone. Maybe it's just the Danish media.
I can't speak for other countries but in the USA we tend to give disproportionate amounts of attention to certain types of attrocities; especially if they involve more people than normal, or younger people than normal. Many people die in easily preventable ways but we don't care; someone dies in a way that is politically charged at that moment and it is a big deal. 1000 children die in groups of 1-2; this matters much less than one group of 20 children dying. In no way does that mean that any of the recent mass shootings such as Newtown is unimportant or do I wish to trivialize their deaths, but we don't have our priorities straight which does a major disservice to our citizens. I'd like lawmakers to priotize laws that are more likely to save my children's lives, not score political points.
|
On January 18 2013 05:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 04:03 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 03:57 Millitron wrote:On January 18 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 03:28 Millitron wrote:On January 18 2013 03:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 18 2013 02:30 kmillz wrote:On January 17 2013 19:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 17 2013 18:41 Teykila wrote:On February 20 2012 03:09 Rainofpain wrote:
I think about it like this: If I want to get a gun to use it for a murder or something, do I really care if I am allowed to use it or not? Gun controls make it harder for the average citizen to obtain a defensive weapon that is effective and not too hard to use/take time to learn. Don't you realise that these large killing were perpetrated by an "average citizen" ? It's not the people who are capable of finding arms illegally (robbers, gangs, drugs dealers) who killed all those people in schools and theaters! I never understood why in the US there is the right to carry weapons without a permit. But i am not from the US so i admit that is why i might not understand. Anyway, after seeing all these killings, you should at least realise that assault weapons should be banned. Why in the hell an assault rifle is considered as a self defense weapon???? Do you prefer killing someone or beeing killed than being robbed? That is something i cannot understand. Nobody should. There is a huge lobby, the NRA, and phenomenal financial interest behind. Without any control over what can be said or not and how much money you can pour into lobbying and electoral support, you can make people believe that 2+2=5, that automatic weapons in free circulation is the solution and not the problem in those killing or that the least taxes for millionaire, the better for the average joe. Since in America, any control over public speech or any attempt to limitate the power of money over the public sphere is seen as a terrible attack on """""freedom""""", we can safely say that not only it is the most structurally corrupt and disfunctionnal of all democracies but also that public opinion doesn't mean much more anymore, and is just the reflection of financial interests. I mean, come on, some people here are talking of the need to have their weapon for when society will have collapsed. You know, zombie apocalypse is also on the table and you might realize that at this point of paranoia and irrationality by the average voter, your democracy is screwed up. My two cents. Because the huge lobbying doesn't go both ways.....last time I checked this country is pretty split in half on most big issues, gun control being one of them (although I've also read that it's skewed to appear that more people believe in gun control than actually do). Either way, it blows my mind everytime someone says some shit like we need more restrictions on speech! We need more restrictions on guns! As if that has ever been proven to work. You think limiting the power of money over the public sphere (restricting free speech) is going to make the public opinion heard more? I don't buy it. Simple as that: there are people who have financial interests into selling guns and are just flooding the political stage with money, and the mediatic stage with propaganda that they only can afford.
Nobody in the private sector will spend hundreds of million convincing people guns are bad because nobody has financial interests to do so.As for "freedom", the "freedom" to spend as much money as you want to support a candidate or a party is called freedom to corrupt in my book. If we consider corruption as the collusion between politics and private interest which is the basic definition. And freedom to use a huge propaganda machine lying day after day after day after day in the most obvious way to serve your corporate interest (hi Fox News) is the freedom for the most uneducated people in the country to be brainwashed every day of their live.See, imo the problem is that with money you can buy anything in the States. You can buy public opinion, even if what you are claiming is just as fucking stupid as 2+2=5 (or that more guns will solve the problem of those killings), and you can buy politicians since their campaign is financed by private money anyway and that there are no restriction on lobbying. In most democracies, Fox News would be basically closed after a week of airing. And no billionaire and corporation could basically buy an election or an amendment in the senate. For me it's the basis of a functional democracy. Both sides lie constantly. It isn't just the Right that lies and spreads propaganda nonsense, the Left does too. The news media stands to make too much money off conflict. They don't care which side is correct, or which side wins, just that they have the highest ratings. That's why you have Piers Morgan bringing Alex Jones on for a gun control debate, and it's why Fox acts like Obama's the devil. Conflict and insanity gets higher ratings than logical discussion. There is just as much lobbying done by the Left as by the NRA, and to say there isn't is either misinformed or willfully negligent. The Left claims some pretty stupid things too. Like "Assault Weapons" being a thing, or civilians having Military grade weapons. The AR15 and the Mini-14 are almost the same gun. They fire the same cartridge, at the same rate. But the AR15 is painted black, so the media can easily convince the uninformed that it's somehow more dangerous than the Mini-14. Here is a brief rundown of the NRA's lobbying activities, all of which are dedicated towards, presumably, the lessening of government control over gun regulation. Find me a liberal lobby that spends anything close to this on anti-gun efforts. That's not the strategy the liberal lobby uses though. They prefer to control the media. You don't have to buy the politicians if you can fool the people who elect them. Have you seen the sheer level of ignorance the news media passes off as "Journalism"? They get people like Piers Morgan, Chris Matthews, and Jesse Jackson to convince people that "Assault Weapons" are actual things, that there's an actual functional difference between them and other rifles that aren't painted black. They act like having magazines that hold more than a single shot is new, extremely dangerous technology. They act like semi-automatic rifles are used in a substantial number of crimes. None of those things are true. Yet simply by saying it loud enough and frequently enough, they've convinced a lot of people that "Assault Weapons" are some new, scourge. Civilians have been buying AR15's since the 70's. They've had other semi-auto rifles since the 50's. They've had semi-auto handguns since the 20's. Semi-automatic weapons that hold more than a couple of shells are not a new thing in the civilian market. They were never a problem before, so why now? Except they do not control the media, and the Fox News channel's popularity is a direct testament to that. Sure, a fair bit of demagoguery on the part of the liberals takes place in media presentation of information, but that is no substitute for straight up cash influence. So, the media presents the public with both perspectives, albeit in a very hackneyed and incomplete manner through the likes of MSNBC and Fox News. However, where is the liberal opposition to gun control in lobby dollars? I'm not sure why you are convinced it must be in lobby dollars. There are not as many anti-gun lobby dollars because it's unnecessary. When you have Hollywood actors (notice, no one from Hollywood was called to Washington, only game makers) as well as the majority of new outlets, you don't need it. It would look really bad if MSNBC had lobbyists, they have to at least maintain the charade of moderation. it wasn't the "gun lobby" that brought all this up after the accident, it was the ANTI-gun groups. They have plenty of influence, enough for 23 congress-ignoring actions.
Who are these anti gun groups? Which candidates have the donated to? And in regards to "the majority of news outlets", which news station has the highest viewership again?
|
On January 18 2013 05:14 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 05:11 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2013 04:03 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 03:57 Millitron wrote:On January 18 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 03:28 Millitron wrote:On January 18 2013 03:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 18 2013 02:30 kmillz wrote:On January 17 2013 19:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 17 2013 18:41 Teykila wrote:
[quote]
Don't you realise that these large killing were perpetrated by an "average citizen" ?
It's not the people who are capable of finding arms illegally (robbers, gangs, drugs dealers) who killed all those people in schools and theaters!
I never understood why in the US there is the right to carry weapons without a permit. But i am not from the US so i admit that is why i might not understand.
Anyway, after seeing all these killings, you should at least realise that assault weapons should be banned. Why in the hell an assault rifle is considered as a self defense weapon????
Do you prefer killing someone or beeing killed than being robbed? That is something i cannot understand. Nobody should.
There is a huge lobby, the NRA, and phenomenal financial interest behind. Without any control over what can be said or not and how much money you can pour into lobbying and electoral support, you can make people believe that 2+2=5, that automatic weapons in free circulation is the solution and not the problem in those killing or that the least taxes for millionaire, the better for the average joe. Since in America, any control over public speech or any attempt to limitate the power of money over the public sphere is seen as a terrible attack on """""freedom""""", we can safely say that not only it is the most structurally corrupt and disfunctionnal of all democracies but also that public opinion doesn't mean much more anymore, and is just the reflection of financial interests. I mean, come on, some people here are talking of the need to have their weapon for when society will have collapsed. You know, zombie apocalypse is also on the table and you might realize that at this point of paranoia and irrationality by the average voter, your democracy is screwed up. My two cents. Because the huge lobbying doesn't go both ways.....last time I checked this country is pretty split in half on most big issues, gun control being one of them (although I've also read that it's skewed to appear that more people believe in gun control than actually do). Either way, it blows my mind everytime someone says some shit like we need more restrictions on speech! We need more restrictions on guns! As if that has ever been proven to work. You think limiting the power of money over the public sphere (restricting free speech) is going to make the public opinion heard more? I don't buy it. Simple as that: there are people who have financial interests into selling guns and are just flooding the political stage with money, and the mediatic stage with propaganda that they only can afford.
Nobody in the private sector will spend hundreds of million convincing people guns are bad because nobody has financial interests to do so.As for "freedom", the "freedom" to spend as much money as you want to support a candidate or a party is called freedom to corrupt in my book. If we consider corruption as the collusion between politics and private interest which is the basic definition. And freedom to use a huge propaganda machine lying day after day after day after day in the most obvious way to serve your corporate interest (hi Fox News) is the freedom for the most uneducated people in the country to be brainwashed every day of their live.See, imo the problem is that with money you can buy anything in the States. You can buy public opinion, even if what you are claiming is just as fucking stupid as 2+2=5 (or that more guns will solve the problem of those killings), and you can buy politicians since their campaign is financed by private money anyway and that there are no restriction on lobbying. In most democracies, Fox News would be basically closed after a week of airing. And no billionaire and corporation could basically buy an election or an amendment in the senate. For me it's the basis of a functional democracy. Both sides lie constantly. It isn't just the Right that lies and spreads propaganda nonsense, the Left does too. The news media stands to make too much money off conflict. They don't care which side is correct, or which side wins, just that they have the highest ratings. That's why you have Piers Morgan bringing Alex Jones on for a gun control debate, and it's why Fox acts like Obama's the devil. Conflict and insanity gets higher ratings than logical discussion. There is just as much lobbying done by the Left as by the NRA, and to say there isn't is either misinformed or willfully negligent. The Left claims some pretty stupid things too. Like "Assault Weapons" being a thing, or civilians having Military grade weapons. The AR15 and the Mini-14 are almost the same gun. They fire the same cartridge, at the same rate. But the AR15 is painted black, so the media can easily convince the uninformed that it's somehow more dangerous than the Mini-14. Here is a brief rundown of the NRA's lobbying activities, all of which are dedicated towards, presumably, the lessening of government control over gun regulation. Find me a liberal lobby that spends anything close to this on anti-gun efforts. That's not the strategy the liberal lobby uses though. They prefer to control the media. You don't have to buy the politicians if you can fool the people who elect them. Have you seen the sheer level of ignorance the news media passes off as "Journalism"? They get people like Piers Morgan, Chris Matthews, and Jesse Jackson to convince people that "Assault Weapons" are actual things, that there's an actual functional difference between them and other rifles that aren't painted black. They act like having magazines that hold more than a single shot is new, extremely dangerous technology. They act like semi-automatic rifles are used in a substantial number of crimes. None of those things are true. Yet simply by saying it loud enough and frequently enough, they've convinced a lot of people that "Assault Weapons" are some new, scourge. Civilians have been buying AR15's since the 70's. They've had other semi-auto rifles since the 50's. They've had semi-auto handguns since the 20's. Semi-automatic weapons that hold more than a couple of shells are not a new thing in the civilian market. They were never a problem before, so why now? Except they do not control the media, and the Fox News channel's popularity is a direct testament to that. Sure, a fair bit of demagoguery on the part of the liberals takes place in media presentation of information, but that is no substitute for straight up cash influence. So, the media presents the public with both perspectives, albeit in a very hackneyed and incomplete manner through the likes of MSNBC and Fox News. However, where is the liberal opposition to gun control in lobby dollars? I'm not sure why you are convinced it must be in lobby dollars. There are not as many anti-gun lobby dollars because it's unnecessary. When you have Hollywood actors (notice, no one from Hollywood was called to Washington, only game makers) as well as the majority of new outlets, you don't need it. It would look really bad if MSNBC had lobbyists, they have to at least maintain the charade of moderation. it wasn't the "gun lobby" that brought all this up after the accident, it was the ANTI-gun groups. They have plenty of influence, enough for 23 congress-ignoring actions. Who are these anti gun groups? Which candidates have the donated to?
There are some anti-gun groups, but it's mostly the media and powerful individuals (the president himself, for instance.) They don't NEED the dollars or large NRA-like groups. This is something they have always wanted to do (you think Biden got jack done in the small number of weeks he was given before making "recommendations?"). I don't blame the fact that Obama spent more money (corporate money!) for the fact that he got elected (I do, however place some blame on the media for not doing their job). This is something that those who are for more gun control saw as the perfect opportunity (look how quickly they passed the bill in NY).
EDIT: "Who are these anti gun groups? Which candidates have the donated to? And in regards to "the majority of news outlets", which news station has the highest viewership again?"
They are smaller, I think I answered that in this post. Yes, Fox has the highest ratings, but they are only one outlet. Everything else is left leaning. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, AP, every newspaper, magazine, etc. Or the "questions" reporters ask the president. (I don't know if Fox has the attention of more people than all the others combined or not. I doubt it.)
|
On January 18 2013 05:20 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 05:14 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 05:11 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2013 04:03 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 03:57 Millitron wrote:On January 18 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 03:28 Millitron wrote:On January 18 2013 03:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 18 2013 02:30 kmillz wrote:On January 17 2013 19:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
There is a huge lobby, the NRA, and phenomenal financial interest behind. Without any control over what can be said or not and how much money you can pour into lobbying and electoral support, you can make people believe that 2+2=5, that automatic weapons in free circulation is the solution and not the problem in those killing or that the least taxes for millionaire, the better for the average joe.
Since in America, any control over public speech or any attempt to limitate the power of money over the public sphere is seen as a terrible attack on """""freedom""""", we can safely say that not only it is the most structurally corrupt and disfunctionnal of all democracies but also that public opinion doesn't mean much more anymore, and is just the reflection of financial interests.
I mean, come on, some people here are talking of the need to have their weapon for when society will have collapsed. You know, zombie apocalypse is also on the table and you might realize that at this point of paranoia and irrationality by the average voter, your democracy is screwed up.
My two cents. Because the huge lobbying doesn't go both ways.....last time I checked this country is pretty split in half on most big issues, gun control being one of them (although I've also read that it's skewed to appear that more people believe in gun control than actually do). Either way, it blows my mind everytime someone says some shit like we need more restrictions on speech! We need more restrictions on guns! As if that has ever been proven to work. You think limiting the power of money over the public sphere (restricting free speech) is going to make the public opinion heard more? I don't buy it. Simple as that: there are people who have financial interests into selling guns and are just flooding the political stage with money, and the mediatic stage with propaganda that they only can afford.
Nobody in the private sector will spend hundreds of million convincing people guns are bad because nobody has financial interests to do so.As for "freedom", the "freedom" to spend as much money as you want to support a candidate or a party is called freedom to corrupt in my book. If we consider corruption as the collusion between politics and private interest which is the basic definition. And freedom to use a huge propaganda machine lying day after day after day after day in the most obvious way to serve your corporate interest (hi Fox News) is the freedom for the most uneducated people in the country to be brainwashed every day of their live.See, imo the problem is that with money you can buy anything in the States. You can buy public opinion, even if what you are claiming is just as fucking stupid as 2+2=5 (or that more guns will solve the problem of those killings), and you can buy politicians since their campaign is financed by private money anyway and that there are no restriction on lobbying. In most democracies, Fox News would be basically closed after a week of airing. And no billionaire and corporation could basically buy an election or an amendment in the senate. For me it's the basis of a functional democracy. Both sides lie constantly. It isn't just the Right that lies and spreads propaganda nonsense, the Left does too. The news media stands to make too much money off conflict. They don't care which side is correct, or which side wins, just that they have the highest ratings. That's why you have Piers Morgan bringing Alex Jones on for a gun control debate, and it's why Fox acts like Obama's the devil. Conflict and insanity gets higher ratings than logical discussion. There is just as much lobbying done by the Left as by the NRA, and to say there isn't is either misinformed or willfully negligent. The Left claims some pretty stupid things too. Like "Assault Weapons" being a thing, or civilians having Military grade weapons. The AR15 and the Mini-14 are almost the same gun. They fire the same cartridge, at the same rate. But the AR15 is painted black, so the media can easily convince the uninformed that it's somehow more dangerous than the Mini-14. Here is a brief rundown of the NRA's lobbying activities, all of which are dedicated towards, presumably, the lessening of government control over gun regulation. Find me a liberal lobby that spends anything close to this on anti-gun efforts. That's not the strategy the liberal lobby uses though. They prefer to control the media. You don't have to buy the politicians if you can fool the people who elect them. Have you seen the sheer level of ignorance the news media passes off as "Journalism"? They get people like Piers Morgan, Chris Matthews, and Jesse Jackson to convince people that "Assault Weapons" are actual things, that there's an actual functional difference between them and other rifles that aren't painted black. They act like having magazines that hold more than a single shot is new, extremely dangerous technology. They act like semi-automatic rifles are used in a substantial number of crimes. None of those things are true. Yet simply by saying it loud enough and frequently enough, they've convinced a lot of people that "Assault Weapons" are some new, scourge. Civilians have been buying AR15's since the 70's. They've had other semi-auto rifles since the 50's. They've had semi-auto handguns since the 20's. Semi-automatic weapons that hold more than a couple of shells are not a new thing in the civilian market. They were never a problem before, so why now? Except they do not control the media, and the Fox News channel's popularity is a direct testament to that. Sure, a fair bit of demagoguery on the part of the liberals takes place in media presentation of information, but that is no substitute for straight up cash influence. So, the media presents the public with both perspectives, albeit in a very hackneyed and incomplete manner through the likes of MSNBC and Fox News. However, where is the liberal opposition to gun control in lobby dollars? I'm not sure why you are convinced it must be in lobby dollars. There are not as many anti-gun lobby dollars because it's unnecessary. When you have Hollywood actors (notice, no one from Hollywood was called to Washington, only game makers) as well as the majority of new outlets, you don't need it. It would look really bad if MSNBC had lobbyists, they have to at least maintain the charade of moderation. it wasn't the "gun lobby" that brought all this up after the accident, it was the ANTI-gun groups. They have plenty of influence, enough for 23 congress-ignoring actions. Who are these anti gun groups? Which candidates have the donated to? There are some anti-gun groups, but it's mostly the media and powerful individuals (the president himself, for instance.) They don't NEED the dollars or large NRA-like groups. This is something they have always wanted to do (you think Biden got jack done in the small number of weeks he was given before making "recommendations?"). I don't blame the fact that Obama spent more money for the fact that he got elected (I do, however place some blame on the media for not doing their job). This is something that those who are for more gun control saw as the perfect opportunity (look how quickly they passed the bill in NY).
Don't you think the fact that, at least in political terms, Democrats practically required a national tragedy in order to even begin discussing gun control points to the power of the NRA and pro-gun lobbyists? You suggest that hollywood and powerful liberal individuals are viable contenders in terms of political influence, and yet the very mention of gun control prior to Sandy Hook and after the Brady Bill would have amounted to political suicide, even amongst many Democrats.
|
On January 18 2013 05:25 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 05:20 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2013 05:14 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 05:11 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2013 04:03 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 03:57 Millitron wrote:On January 18 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 03:28 Millitron wrote:On January 18 2013 03:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 18 2013 02:30 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
Because the huge lobbying doesn't go both ways.....last time I checked this country is pretty split in half on most big issues, gun control being one of them (although I've also read that it's skewed to appear that more people believe in gun control than actually do). Either way, it blows my mind everytime someone says some shit like we need more restrictions on speech! We need more restrictions on guns! As if that has ever been proven to work. You think limiting the power of money over the public sphere (restricting free speech) is going to make the public opinion heard more? I don't buy it. Simple as that: there are people who have financial interests into selling guns and are just flooding the political stage with money, and the mediatic stage with propaganda that they only can afford.
Nobody in the private sector will spend hundreds of million convincing people guns are bad because nobody has financial interests to do so.As for "freedom", the "freedom" to spend as much money as you want to support a candidate or a party is called freedom to corrupt in my book. If we consider corruption as the collusion between politics and private interest which is the basic definition. And freedom to use a huge propaganda machine lying day after day after day after day in the most obvious way to serve your corporate interest (hi Fox News) is the freedom for the most uneducated people in the country to be brainwashed every day of their live.See, imo the problem is that with money you can buy anything in the States. You can buy public opinion, even if what you are claiming is just as fucking stupid as 2+2=5 (or that more guns will solve the problem of those killings), and you can buy politicians since their campaign is financed by private money anyway and that there are no restriction on lobbying. In most democracies, Fox News would be basically closed after a week of airing. And no billionaire and corporation could basically buy an election or an amendment in the senate. For me it's the basis of a functional democracy. Both sides lie constantly. It isn't just the Right that lies and spreads propaganda nonsense, the Left does too. The news media stands to make too much money off conflict. They don't care which side is correct, or which side wins, just that they have the highest ratings. That's why you have Piers Morgan bringing Alex Jones on for a gun control debate, and it's why Fox acts like Obama's the devil. Conflict and insanity gets higher ratings than logical discussion. There is just as much lobbying done by the Left as by the NRA, and to say there isn't is either misinformed or willfully negligent. The Left claims some pretty stupid things too. Like "Assault Weapons" being a thing, or civilians having Military grade weapons. The AR15 and the Mini-14 are almost the same gun. They fire the same cartridge, at the same rate. But the AR15 is painted black, so the media can easily convince the uninformed that it's somehow more dangerous than the Mini-14. Here is a brief rundown of the NRA's lobbying activities, all of which are dedicated towards, presumably, the lessening of government control over gun regulation. Find me a liberal lobby that spends anything close to this on anti-gun efforts. That's not the strategy the liberal lobby uses though. They prefer to control the media. You don't have to buy the politicians if you can fool the people who elect them. Have you seen the sheer level of ignorance the news media passes off as "Journalism"? They get people like Piers Morgan, Chris Matthews, and Jesse Jackson to convince people that "Assault Weapons" are actual things, that there's an actual functional difference between them and other rifles that aren't painted black. They act like having magazines that hold more than a single shot is new, extremely dangerous technology. They act like semi-automatic rifles are used in a substantial number of crimes. None of those things are true. Yet simply by saying it loud enough and frequently enough, they've convinced a lot of people that "Assault Weapons" are some new, scourge. Civilians have been buying AR15's since the 70's. They've had other semi-auto rifles since the 50's. They've had semi-auto handguns since the 20's. Semi-automatic weapons that hold more than a couple of shells are not a new thing in the civilian market. They were never a problem before, so why now? Except they do not control the media, and the Fox News channel's popularity is a direct testament to that. Sure, a fair bit of demagoguery on the part of the liberals takes place in media presentation of information, but that is no substitute for straight up cash influence. So, the media presents the public with both perspectives, albeit in a very hackneyed and incomplete manner through the likes of MSNBC and Fox News. However, where is the liberal opposition to gun control in lobby dollars? I'm not sure why you are convinced it must be in lobby dollars. There are not as many anti-gun lobby dollars because it's unnecessary. When you have Hollywood actors (notice, no one from Hollywood was called to Washington, only game makers) as well as the majority of new outlets, you don't need it. It would look really bad if MSNBC had lobbyists, they have to at least maintain the charade of moderation. it wasn't the "gun lobby" that brought all this up after the accident, it was the ANTI-gun groups. They have plenty of influence, enough for 23 congress-ignoring actions. Who are these anti gun groups? Which candidates have the donated to? There are some anti-gun groups, but it's mostly the media and powerful individuals (the president himself, for instance.) They don't NEED the dollars or large NRA-like groups. This is something they have always wanted to do (you think Biden got jack done in the small number of weeks he was given before making "recommendations?"). I don't blame the fact that Obama spent more money for the fact that he got elected (I do, however place some blame on the media for not doing their job). This is something that those who are for more gun control saw as the perfect opportunity (look how quickly they passed the bill in NY). Don't you think the fact that, at least in political terms, Democrats practically required a national tragedy in order to even begin discussing gun control points to the power of the NRA and pro-gun lobbyists? You suggest that hollywood and powerful liberal individuals are viable contenders in terms of political influence, and yet the very mention of gun control prior to Sandy Hook and after the Brady Bill would have amounted to political suicide, even amongst many Democrats.
No, I don't think so. Maybe if we were having this discussion in another country, but in America I find it very easy to believe that those trying to limit the Bill of Rights (which there obviously are limits, don't misunderstand me) have to make use of a tragedy. Especially when it comes to guns. "Oh look, an 'assault weapon' was used! GET IT." by that logic we should also ban handguns and everything else. They have to wait until it involves children or the like. We didn't have this kind of action after the Colorado shooting, or any other one recently. They had to jump on this opportunity to appeal to emotions instead of looking at the facts about gun violence. That demonstrates the feelings of the people, not the NRA (made up of people, citizens, etc. Far more "normal" people in it than any other union or lobbying group. They just added 100k new members, not lobbyists.)
|
On January 18 2013 05:11 Introvert wrote:
They have plenty of influence, enough for 23 congress-ignoring actions.
god damn those presidents (every single one) and their congress ignoring actions. are any of these congress ignoring orders particularly bothering to you? or are you one of those guys who automatically condemns anything democrat related because it's easier than actually doing your own research and thinking?
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make itwidely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effectiveuse of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to developinnovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
|
On January 18 2013 05:37 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 05:11 Introvert wrote:
They have plenty of influence, enough for 23 congress-ignoring actions.
god damn those presidents (every single one) and their congress ignoring actions. are any of these congress ignoring orders particularly bothering to you? or are you one of those guys who automatically condemns anything democrats related because it's easier than actually doing your own research and thinking? Show nested quote +
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make itwidely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effectiveuse of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to developinnovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
I'm not going to go through every one, but some of them are silly. but you are right, not all of them ignore congress, for instance, #11 is hilarious because it's the president ordering himself to do what he can do anyway. #23 is also funny because it doesn't mean anything (unless it means spending money for this "dialogue." ) 16/17 are devious, could make doctors liable for a patient that commits a crime on the grounds that he didn't report the patient. executive orders are supposed to be for carrying out existing laws (the duty of the executive branch) so anything that sets up something new is a violation of separation of powers.
|
More people are killed by guns per year in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. Places like Japan and South Korea have virtually no gun related murders. On the other hand Mexico and Brazil have more gun murders than the U.S. per year but they also have extreme problems with organized crime. The argument that there is no sufficient evidence that strict gun laws work doesn't cut it when there is a wealth of statistical evidence that you can just use google to find. The fact is that gun laws do work and there are plenty of examples all over the world to look at.
The Sandy Hook shooter had a doomsday nut of a mom that just stockpiled weapons making it easy for him to take his pick of what he wanted to go on his mass shooting with. If weapons are much harder to get than nutcases like this won't be able to just easily grab assault rifles or pistols and go shoot up a school.
|
United States24569 Posts
On January 18 2013 09:22 KingJames wrote:
More people are killed by guns per year in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. Places like Japan and South Korea have virtually no gun related murders. On the other hand Mexico and Brazil have more gun murders than the U.S. per year but they also have extreme problems with organized crime. The argument that there is no sufficient evidence that strict gun laws work doesn't cut it when there is a wealth of statistical evidence that you can just use google to find. The fact is that gun laws do work and there are plenty of examples all over the world to look at.
The Sandy Hook shooter had a doomsday nut of a mom that just stockpiled weapons making it easy for him to take his pick of what he wanted to go on his mass shooting with. If weapons are much harder to get than nutcases like this won't be able to just easily grab assault rifles or pistols and go shoot up a school.
That might have worked if we could go back hundreds of years and stamp out the gun culture before it started. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. People on either side of the isse regarding whether or not additional simple gun control laws would help the USA should recognize that the USA is not truly comparable to any other country. What "worked" for the UK in the 80s is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. What "didn't work" in some country also is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. You can try to draw conclusions, but anyone who feels confident in them is deluding themselves.
What should be done with the hundreds of millions of guns in the country? With such a strong gun culture, buybacks (expensive) won't recover most of them, let alone an unfunded mandate to require them to be turned in. I feel really bad for the cops who have to try to confiscate guns from all the gun nuts who have been stocking up on guns and ammo for years just waiting for the government to come take their guns away (whether either side is justified or not). Also, any law which makes many thousands or millions of law abiding citizens into felons overnight is a big mistake.
|
On January 18 2013 09:45 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 09:22 KingJames wrote:
More people are killed by guns per year in the U.S. than all of Europe combined. Places like Japan and South Korea have virtually no gun related murders. On the other hand Mexico and Brazil have more gun murders than the U.S. per year but they also have extreme problems with organized crime. The argument that there is no sufficient evidence that strict gun laws work doesn't cut it when there is a wealth of statistical evidence that you can just use google to find. The fact is that gun laws do work and there are plenty of examples all over the world to look at.
The Sandy Hook shooter had a doomsday nut of a mom that just stockpiled weapons making it easy for him to take his pick of what he wanted to go on his mass shooting with. If weapons are much harder to get than nutcases like this won't be able to just easily grab assault rifles or pistols and go shoot up a school. That might have worked if we could go back hundreds of years and stamp out the gun culture before it started. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. People on either side of the isse regarding whether or not additional simple gun control laws would help the USA should recognize that the USA is not truly comparable to any other country. What "worked" for the UK in the 80s is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. What "didn't work" in some country also is not very enlightening for what the USA should do. You can try to draw conclusions, but anyone who feels confident in them is deluding themselves. What should be done with the hundreds of millions of guns in the country? With such a strong gun culture, buybacks (expensive) won't recover most of them, let alone an unfunded mandate to require them to be turned in. I feel really bad for the cops who have to try to confiscate guns from all the gun nuts who have been stocking up on guns and ammo for years just waiting for the government to come take their guns away (whether either side is justified or not). Also, any law which makes many thousands or millions of law abiding citizens into felons overnight is a big mistake.
Yeah its true that with something like 270 million guns already in the civilian population that recovering them would be almost impossible.. but over a few generations with the right laws and mindset it could be possible to reduce that number by a lot. Just because there is no overnight fix doesn't mean that the gun problem couldn't be fixed in time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
