Page 3 of 6
Posted on February 11 at 8:39 p.m.
Good point. Though I certainly can't condone his killing of three people, I'm finding it difficult not to root for Christopher Dorner against the LAPD, even though he's in favor of stricter gun laws ;-) . According to this article (link at bottom) I'm not alone.
Excerpt (article title and link at bottom):
"Dorner is attacking the system that created him, proving its senseless violence by embodying that senseless violence and turning it back upon its creators:
"The culture of LAPD versus the community and honest/good officers needs to and will change. I am here to correct and calibrate your morale compasses to true north.
"Dorner’s manifesto has been dismissed as “rambling” and “incoherent” by most major news outlets, who ignore the fact that it’s actually an articulate and thorough denunciation of police brutality, written by a whistle blower with a demand for stricter gun laws."
'LAPD Chickens Come Home to Roost'http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/1...
On Jackson Introducing Bill to Ban Specific Shotgun
Posted on February 11 at 6:47 p.m.
I've never written or implied anything about "astroturfing," either in regards to you or anyone else.
I also don't understand why you believe 'astroturfing' and 'template' are somehow connected.
(Assuming it's a sincere question): in answer to your confusion regarding the term 'template': I compose longer comments offline before posting, which therefore results in a document labelled and organized in such a way that I can very quickly access it on my hard drive.
So, for example, if a month from now, I'm writing an email to a friend about the 2nd Amendment, rather than waste time re-composing a passage I've already composed, I'll simply access that passage with a few clicks, and copy and paste it, usually in less than ten seconds.
I hope that's OK with you. ;-)
Posted on February 11 at 6:06 p.m.
Thanks, I had only one source for that and didn't confirm it. I'll update my template so it will be accurate, should I ever want to use that phrase elsewhere.
And even better, as these dates are more recent.
Posted on February 11 at 3:11 p.m.
"Why do hypothetical questions need to be directed at one person in general?"
Your question above is most perplexing. If your ad hominem attack at 9:22 p.m. yesterday...
"What about those who don't agree with you? Are they to be shot too?"
...directly below two of mine, was directed neither to me nor to any specific person, then it would have to have been directed at everyone who reads it.
That would be nonsensical for at least two reasons: the pointless remark, including the word 'you', yet referencing neither a particular person nor a particular comment (1) would be directed even to those who had not yet appeared in the discussion, and (2) would be directed against both those who agree with you and those who don't.______________________
"I advise all newcomers not to take anyone's online comments here personally EVER or you're gonna have a LOT of bummer days."
This also makes little sense; many of us clearly direct comments to specific individuals, to clarify, not just for the individual asking a question, but in consideration to other readers, what the comment is in reference to. In these cases, of which there are many, "you're gonna have a LOT of bummer days" has no relevance.
Posted on February 11 at 2:24 p.m.
Thanks AZ2SB, but though I feel it's important to fully resolve an issue with someone that got personal, I hesitated — three times — to post my 1:16 pm comment, as I am not unaware that that sub-topic is likely of little interest to most readers (so I'm not actually in favor of others chiming in on this, but only because it's a sub-topic not relevant to the discussion).
So apologizes to anyone who feels inconvenienced by the subtopic, but things seem to finally be winding down on this discussion, which has had a very nice three-day run, so I suspect few have been bothered.
Regarding things winding down here, at Noozhawk, Craig Allen just posted the article I've linked at bottom. Those sufficiently knowledgeable about the constitution to understand that the whole point of it is to delineate rights we already have that political hacks aren't permitted to take away, rather than rights that we must beg their permission to exercise, will likely enjoy his article.
It only has ten comments as of this writing, but I've already introduced my good friends Dianne Feinstein and Hannah-Beth Jackson and, for a coming attraction should the discussion grow sufficiently to accommodate it, since Craig mentions baseball bats in his post, I have, on deck, a short 'humor break' comment that includes a link to an image of an assault bat and what Dianne Feinstein would likely do about it, assuming Hannah-Beth Jackson doesn't beat her to it.
(Sorry, Santa Barbara Independent, for a link off-site to a similar discussion, which I would never consider doing were this discussion not three days old; but post any future articles about local political hacks and their unconstitutional self-serving stunts and I'll likely participate.)
'Craig Allen: Gun Control Is Really About Freedom'http://www.noozhawk.com/article/craig...
Posted on February 11 at 1:16 p.m.
Though your comment above directly follows mine, it's not clear to me whether it's directed at me, and if so, in reference to which comment.
If it is directed to me, I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT.
But (and just for clarification, if needed, and not because I want to reopen this): if your comment above is referring to my comment at 10:44 p.m. yesterday, note that, while I won't disagree that my 10:44 p.m. comment could have been more diplomatic, that comment was primarily prompted by your ad hominem attack directed at me at 9:22 p.m.:
And incidentally, I found the word 'too' above perplexing, as I had neither written nor implied that anyone should be shot. ;-)
Posted on February 11 at 11:57 a.m.
Regarding your final paragraph above: Ken's comment was directed at me, yet was perplexing, as it didn't appear to reference anything I wrote or even implied, so I didn't respond.
So since you've clarified it: I'm in agreement with you, and will answer both of Ken's questions:
"In other words, you're saying the neolioberals are the same as the neoconservatives?"Regarding both my points from the comment you are responding to, (1) immoral and illegal wars of aggression against countries who have not attacked us and pose no threat to us, and (2) domestic tyranny (PATRIOT Act, NDAA, etc) there's virtually no difference between the blue party and the red party, and has not been for at least 60 years. Regarding (1), in terms of international law, all USA presidents at least since Eisenhower have been war criminals, some (Kennedy, Carter) having committed far fewer war crimes than others (Bush, Obama).
"If W. had an additional four years you think we'd be on a different course?"No; we'd be on the exact same course, but being taken there by a war criminal / domestic tyrant with a less-engaging smile.
Posted on February 11 at 11:32 a.m.
I'm with you with no objection to continuing the full-auto ban, particularly as it has been in place since 1934, as I indicated in my comment today at 9:06 a.m. (that perhaps you're referencing).
Incidentally, my understanding (currently based only on one source) is that even the military finds full-auto useful only rarely and for very specific circumstances, such as laying down huge amounts of suppressing fire.
Regarding your question on my use of the phrase 'government thugs', you'll probably find it more understandable (whether you agree with my characterization or not) in the context of my comments above yesterday at 12:36 p.m, 2:05 p.m, and 5:36 p.m., most particularly the four facts I list in item (2) of the latter (three of which pertain, incidentally, to non-law enforcement / non-military domestic agencies).
Posted on February 11 at 9:06 a.m.
Setting aside the concept of 'need' often incorrectly claimed to be relevant by these political hacks who apparently, despite their oaths of office, fail to understand the concept of 'right,' an AR-15 (the initials indicate the manufacturer, incidentally, not 'assault rifle') is essentially, then, a modern rifle, semi-automatic, as are, I believe, approximately 80% of rifles in circulation.
Regarding the accessories that have been added to the version illustrated at the bottom right of the link above: none increase the firepower; the utility of the scope, bipod stand, hand grip, and higher capacity magazine for sport shooting enthusiasts should be obvious. The collapsible stock makes it easy for the firearm to be adjusted to be ideal for any body size and, to be shared, for instance, between husband and wife sport shooting enthusiasts. Despite the political hacks' claims that this particular rifle is "not needed for hunting" (and setting aside the irrelevance of such claims) hunters appreciate modern rifles with plastic composite rather than wood stocks (set up for hunting, rather than sport shooting, as in the photo), as they are much lighter for carrying around in the woods for hours.
So essentially, Feinstein and Feinstein wannabes are demonizing law-abiding US citizens for owning particular firearms because they're black (the firearms, not the citizens!) and, according to them, 'military style.'
Finally, a recent federal purchase order for 7000 AR-15s — by a domestic agency, and thus presumably for potential use against US citizens within the US — describes these firearms as 'personal defense weapons.' So: legitimate defense weapons when possessed by the government thugs, but 'assault rifles' when possessed by law-abiding US citizens.
Posted on February 11 at 9:05 a.m.
As there appears to be considerable support here for what I consider the broader questions that should be asked, I'd like now to respond to your request for comments regarding particular firearms.
You mention AR-15 in your comment yesterday at 1:24 p.m.
First, regarding the term 'assault rifle', this was originally defined as an automatic weapon (of which an AR-15 is not); such firearms, which cost $15,000 or more, have been banned since 1934, with very few exceptions, usually for law enforcement and similar individuals, who must undergo extensive, expensive, and time-consuming background checks.
So the current use of the term 'assault rifle' by various political hacks is simply a deliberately provocative and pejorative term that does absolutely nothing to further classify 'rifle' and is used simply in order to scare those not knowledgeable about firearms. Regarding 'military style', a term also wildly tossed around by these tyrants and tyrant wannabes, it requires zero understanding of firearms to understand the absurdity of limiting or banning something because of its 'style.' More on 'style' below.
If one were to click on the link below, and view the bottom two images only: this is the EXACT SAME FIREARM, the left with a wood stock, the right with a modern plastic composite stock and some other accessories:
It's a simple .22 RIFLE, the type of rifle that 12-year olds have used to learn marksmanship in summer camp for decades. Yet, if shown a photo of the bottom right version, the hypocrite Senator Feinstein (with her own concealed carry permit as well as armed guards nearly everywhere she goes) would insist it's an 'assault rifle' and none of the 100 million law-abiding American gun-owners who have never fired a gun at anyone should be "allowed" to own it.
...THIS COMMENT COMPLETED IN COMMENT BELOW...
The Santa Barbara Bird Sanctuary will dedicate a new learning ... Read More
Previous Month | Next Month