Psycho-Babble Politics Thread 1042343

Shown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

Really? We can't do anything?

Posted by sleepygirl2 on April 18, 2013, at 22:14:10

Just a little regulation on guns.... Something
But that might say that, ya know what?
Guns can be really dangerous. That's right, they don't send just people to war, they send them with guns.
I personally knew someone who bought a rifle at a gun show. He was delusional, thought he was being shot at.
I mean you can't say no to assault weapons?? Well.... Wow
But you can't even say yes to background checks??

Leaving that aside.....
It's really disturbing that almost all of those senators receive campaign contributions from the NRA. And so, with the general public, is this truly a debate??? Or just a distraction while lawmakers are bought and sold?

 

Re: Really? We can't do anything? sleepygirl2

Posted by sigismund on April 19, 2013, at 18:20:12

In reply to Really? We can't do anything?, posted by sleepygirl2 on April 18, 2013, at 22:14:10

Yes. Very interesting and a useful caution when next hearing about how we value human life so much, unlike those in whose countries our armies are (on occasion) killing people, such as in Afghanistan recently from where it was reported that 20 odd children were killed in a single drone attack.

Yoko Ono said something along the lines that over 1,000,000 had been killed by guns since JL was shot.

We narrowly escaped the trap you are caught in. How narrowly was shown yesterday when a member of parliament from the Shooters and Fishers Party was saying we should fight our gun control legislation, as should you. He was pictured with a very brown and large African elephant he had shot. I hope we see that photo again during the election. But who knows, shooting is fun and the bigger the animal the more fun it might be.

I grew up in a more or less typical deluded rich and unhappy family and recall clearly when, aged around 10, I said to the manager who was showing us around 'Can you shoot that emu?' He replied 'You are a bloodthirsty little thing, aren't you?' And then he shot it for me. I remember it clearly and painfully to this day.

Assault weapons? Why stop there? Freedom is freedom. Too stupid for words.

 

60% sleepygirl2

Posted by sigismund on June 2, 2013, at 13:03:09

In reply to Really? We can't do anything?, posted by sleepygirl2 on April 18, 2013, at 22:14:10

Is that right? That the vote in the Senate(?) did not (quite) reach 60%?

Why would it need that? Why not 50% It wasn't a constitutional amendment was it?

 

Re: 60% sigismund

Posted by SLS on June 3, 2013, at 6:54:55

In reply to 60% sleepygirl2, posted by sigismund on June 2, 2013, at 13:03:09

> Is that right? That the vote in the Senate(?) did not (quite) reach 60%?
>
> Why would it need that? Why not 50% It wasn't a constitutional amendment was it?

60% is considered to be a "supermajority" that has the power to prevent the exercise of filibusters by competing parties.

For an amendment of the US Constitution to be brought to a vote for passage, a two-thirds supermajority is required; whether it be by votes of members of Congress or by votes of the individual states. Passage of an amendment requires a three-fourths supermajority of votes; either by Congress or by the states.


- Scott

 

Re: 60%

Posted by sleepygirl2 on June 3, 2013, at 13:06:53

In reply to 60% sleepygirl2, posted by sigismund on June 2, 2013, at 13:03:09

It's funny because the utility of gun regulation is alluded to in the second amendment, but there is much room in the amendment for interpretation, much of which contradicts objectivity.

They're actively blocking EVERYTHING
President Obama has an executive order in place that gun dealers be required to submit reports when any one particular party is obtaining large amounts of automatic weapons. Well, I kinda hope someone would notice if they were about to start an army. And the NRA is fighting it!!
And there are people who think there should be an attack on the government. There's some group that plans to march to Washinton DC armed, as a "peaceful protest", in "Support" of the second amendment.
No one is coming for the guns. We just need a reasonable set of laws that takes common sense into consideration.

 

Re: 60%

Posted by sleepygirl2 on June 3, 2013, at 13:11:49

In reply to Re: 60% sigismund, posted by SLS on June 3, 2013, at 6:54:55

And the sickest thing is that lobbyists and legislators are profiting from the fear and paranoia generated. They've actually given toned downed directives to continue some war.
Diplomacy, that's another thing. We need more of it. There's actually been more of it. But we can't become over involved in matters in the Middle East, and we need to be more oil independent, moving toward solar, wind, whatever.

 

Re: 60%

Posted by sleepygirl2 on June 3, 2013, at 13:16:08

In reply to Re: 60%, posted by sleepygirl2 on June 3, 2013, at 13:06:53

Btw, forgot to say.... Everyone will be armed at the "peaceful protest" in "support" of the 2nd amendment, on July 4th. Since guns are not allowed in DC, they say they'll cooperate with police directives. If met with " physical force" they will defend themselves. I hope that day doesn't end badly, but geeez, really??

 

Re: 60%

Posted by sigismund on June 3, 2013, at 14:34:12

In reply to Re: 60% sigismund, posted by SLS on June 3, 2013, at 6:54:55

A filibuster is where the speaker speaks (more or less) forever?

I did read somewhere of someone speaking for a very long time, but eventually they would have to stop, if only because they would die.

 

Re: 60% sigismund

Posted by SLS on June 4, 2013, at 5:35:15

In reply to Re: 60%, posted by sigismund on June 3, 2013, at 14:34:12

> A filibuster is where the speaker speaks (more or less) forever?
>
> I did read somewhere of someone speaking for a very long time, but eventually they would have to stop, if only because they would die.

Yes, filibusters are allowed to continue forever ("Mr. Smith Goes To Washington"), so long as a vote for cloture (60%) is not obtained. I think that there are some proposed revisions to this parliamentary tactic. I don't know the details.


- Scott

 

Re: 60% sleepygirl2

Posted by SLS on June 4, 2013, at 5:59:54

In reply to Re: 60%, posted by sleepygirl2 on June 3, 2013, at 13:06:53

> It's funny because the utility of gun regulation is alluded to in the second amendment, but there is much room in the amendment for interpretation, much of which contradicts objectivity.

--------------

+ "Militia"?

+ "Well regulated"?

+ "necessary to the security of a free State"?

+ "the people"?

= The military?


* I don't know. Better minds than mine have judged these things in the past.

Here is an interesting Wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


- Scott

 

Re: 60%

Posted by sigismund on June 4, 2013, at 19:42:40

In reply to Re: 60% sleepygirl2, posted by SLS on June 4, 2013, at 5:59:54

John Howard was quite a conservative politician and a real friend of the US, but after the Port Arthur massacre he said 'I am determined that Australia will not go down the same path as the USA.'

Eventually he got his legislation through. The problem is once there are sufficient guns in the community, the argument for any type of gun control becomes more difficult because there are so many guns in the community.

I don't actually think of these things as guns; I think of rifles or, at a stretch, pistols.

 

Re: 60% sleepygirl2

Posted by sigismund on June 4, 2013, at 19:46:39

In reply to Re: 60%, posted by sleepygirl2 on June 3, 2013, at 13:16:08

Look, what is it about really?

My right, against the right of government to do something or other?

I have read Joe Bageant and he made some kind of sense to me.

Class and stuff like that. I liked him a lot.

 

Re: 60% sleepygirl2

Posted by sigismund on June 4, 2013, at 19:49:23

In reply to Re: 60%, posted by sleepygirl2 on June 3, 2013, at 13:11:49

Then there is all the dinero given by the privatised prison industry to keep the war on drugs going and therefore also their revenues.

 

Re: 60% sigismund

Posted by SLS on June 4, 2013, at 21:02:49

In reply to Re: 60%, posted by sigismund on June 4, 2013, at 19:42:40

I don't think that the passage of gun control today would result in fewer guns on the street tomorrow. However, it might result in a safer street years from now as guns on the street disappear through attrition. I hope there are some law-makers that think to the future on behalf of coming generations.


- Scott

 

Re: 60%

Posted by sigismund on June 11, 2013, at 16:20:31

In reply to Re: 60% sigismund, posted by SLS on June 4, 2013, at 21:02:49

It's all very complicated.

I found this interesting, from wiki..........

A filibuster can be defeated by the majority party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else. Indeed, Thurmond's attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak, and the matter eventually was forced to a vote. Thurmond's aforementioned stall holds the record for the longest filibuster in U.S. Senate history at 24 hours, 18 minutes.[10]

 

Re: Really? 11 Facts about guns in the U.S.

Posted by Jay_Original1 on December 24, 2013, at 13:48:02

In reply to Really? We can't do anything?, posted by sleepygirl2 on April 18, 2013, at 22:14:10

> Just a little regulation on guns.... Something
> But that might say that, ya know what?
> Guns can be really dangerous. That's right, they don't send just people to war, they send them with guns.
> I personally knew someone who bought a rifle at a gun show. He was delusional, thought he was being shot at.
> I mean you can't say no to assault weapons?? Well.... Wow
> But you can't even say yes to background checks??
>
> Leaving that aside.....
> It's really disturbing that almost all of those senators receive campaign contributions from the NRA. And so, with the general public, is this truly a debate??? Or just a distraction while lawmakers are bought and sold?

Well, I have a bit of a different perspective on Guns, and not just because I am Canadian. I honestly don't mean this in a smug way. But I think the entire question of violence in U.S. (and increasingly Canadian) society must be addressed. I am not talking about censorship or anything close. But, the use of aggression should not be tolerated so much. Kids are raised in a black and white world, with only a 'good' and a 'bad'. And violence is promoted with 'toy' guns, and military 'toys'. Very aggressive competition, with a 'winner' and a loser' is promoted in sports. I don't claim to have THE answer, but I think we should be looking in this direction.
Anyhow...sorry...here are 11 Facts about gun violence.. (from http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-guns)

In America, there are approximately 270 million firearms possessed by civilians, and only 897,000 carried by police.

Approximately 20 percent of gun owners own 65 percent of the guns.

​
The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms reports that about 5.5 million new firearms were manufactured in America in 2010. 95 percent of it was for the U.S. market.

Close to 33,000 Americans were victims of gun-related deaths in 2011.

In 2011, 10.3 in every 100,000 people in the U.S. were victims of gun-related deaths.

Buyers that purchase firearms through private sales in the U.S. don't have to pass a background check before obtaining possession of the weapon.

This includes sales to criminals, felons, and people with a history of severe mental illness.

In the first 11 months of 2012, the federal government performed 16.8 million background checks on legal gun purchases, which was a record high since the system was founded back in 1998.

The Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence reports that an average of 268 people are shot every day in America. That's 97,820 per year.

Trigger locks are used to make a firearm more difficult to discharge and act as a safety precaution in carrying and owning guns. However,
only 9 states in America (NY, NJ, CA, OH, MI, RI, MD, PA, MA) have trigger lock laws that enforce this precautionary measure.

Since 1950, every public mass shooting (with the exception of just one) in the U.S. has occurred in a place where civilians are banned from carrying firearms.
51 gun shows banned attendees from bringing loaded guns to events in January 2013, to promote a safe, recreational environment.

In January 2013, President Obama presented his comprehensive plan to prevent gun violence in the U.S. His plan includes:

improving the background check system
banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines of ammunition
creating and enforcing stricter trafficking laws
increasing our study and knowledge of the gun violence epidemic


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.