The open political discussion thread. Read the first post!

[supmet]

Originally Posted by MadMax

I fully agree with the need to have a license to conceal carry, once again the protection of the public is the primary driver in requiring that, but honestly what business is it of the government what guns I own?

How about to solve murder cases?? I just watched some report on gun shows. Some dude bought like 7 rifles, 2 shotguns, and 2 pistols at a gun show without ever showing ID. That's just fucking crazy.. If you think that's OK, then there is no point to rational discussion. Someone out on parole for murder can go buy a small arsenal of weapons and ammo, no questions asked, no paperwork.

Now my question - honestly what business is it of the government what drugs I smoke?

[SailDesign]

Originally Posted by MadMax

I am good with that, I appreciate your inputs and respect your opinion; and I believe you are doing the same for me.

I don't think the goal should be to sway everyone to one side of a topic or another, but instead to post their beliefs and supporting evidence. If after reading the submissions a person changes their stance, that's great; but the desired result should be that everyone gets to state their opinion.

Cheers! M2

Likewise.

[jambo101]

Originally Posted by frownonfun

must ... resist... urge... to argue. lol. man this thread is tempting. still i'm not gonna do it. i think this is a bad idea for the record but i do hope everyone remains somewhat civil. i'll be following the thread nonetheless.

subscribed.

I've seen too many other forums adopt a political topic,it usually deteriorates to a pissing contest quickly.
If you happen to believe the people of a civilized society dont need guns the pro gun people have all the answers to tell you why it does.
If you are a Democrat/Liberal you will never convince a Republican/conservative that your form of government has merit.So whats the point in arguing the issues on a Yaris forum?

[1NZYaris1]

Originally Posted by Bob_VT

The primary reason is that the posts moved from political to personal. When a moderator comments in any post in the capacity of a regular member then he/she can no longer remain objective and surrenders the ability to "moderate" in that thread.

I enjoy the fact that eTiMaGo who is French.... living in Thailand.... with an American quote in his signature participates. Someone has to keep the Canadians and Aussies in check!!!!

Keep this in mind..... we (members in the USA) pay the politicians salary.... we have the right to get upset ....... we pay for it!

Aussie bashing does not belong in this thread ,
That's a job for us KIWI's , and we are aloud to do it anytime and anywhere. just joking . anyone can make fun of an Aussie

[SailDesign]

Originally Posted by jambo101

I've seen too many other forums adopt a political topic,it usually deteriorates to a pissing contest quickly.
If you happen to believe the people of a civilized society dont need guns the pro gun people have all the answers to tell you why it does.
If you are a Democrat/Liberal you will never convince a Republican/conservative that your form of government has merit.So whats the point in arguing the issues on a Yaris forum?

And the world is a better place for the ability to discuss therse things.

[tomato]

Originally Posted by frownonfun

must ... resist... urge... to argue. lol. man this thread is tempting. still i'm not gonna do it.

I'm sitting on my hands too!

[NJBob]

Guns: What is finally being dealt with is clamping down on illegal gun sources such as "Straw Men". Our most serious crimes are done with illegal weapons. In NJ the "assault" term was so precisely defined you could still buy a rifle just as deadly but didn't have a flash muzzle, pistol grip or 15+ round clip. The law was pointless and now defunct. Domestic crimes will be done with whatever weapon available during a fit of emotion or drunkenness. That's my 2 cents. The facts may be a little off (I'm not an expert) but that's the gist of it.

AS for Obama, I voted for him. It took the prior administration 8 years to bury us...let's give the man some time and co-operation to dig us out. We need action NOW.

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by supmet

How about to solve murder cases?? I just watched some report on gun shows. Some dude bought like 7 rifles, 2 shotguns, and 2 pistols at a gun show without ever showing ID. That's just fucking crazy.. If you think that's OK, then there is no point to rational discussion. Someone out on parole for murder can go buy a small arsenal of weapons and ammo, no questions asked, no paperwork.

Now my question - honestly what business is it of the government what drugs I smoke?

Proving eligibility to purchase weapons and registering them are two different things. Every state is required to do background checks on individuals purchasing weapons, even private sellers are required to know if the purchaser can legally own the weapon before selling it to them. In Texas, having a CHL is all the proof you need; but even a Texas driver's license is good enough but it must be called in and a background check completed before the sale occurs.

And don't believe everything you see on TV; but yes, illegal gun sales do occur. But you do realize that there are already laws on the books that require eligibility to purchase weapons and...big surprise here...criminals are not abiding by them! Do you really think more laws will solve that? No. The only people that are affected by stricter gun laws are law-abiding citizens, which aren't the problem in the first place!

And, as I stated in my previous post, gun registration has very rarely ever been used to solve a murder. Think about it, just because some paper shows I own a .45 or a 9mm it cannot be evidence of a connection to a crime.

Cheers! M2

[GeneW]

I've been told that Bob's banishment has been lifted. When he comes back is his own choice.

Originally Posted by SailDesign

Guns - a fun topic, and for some reason VERY contentious over here.

My own view is that all guns should be registered. Just like cars. Do you bitch about having to register a car?
My 2-cents.

Two views of government.

Theory A- People surrender some of their own power to the government in order to make things work for the common good. In this sense the US is a form of limited Anarchy. I think that this limited Anarchy has benefited us in some cases because freedom to chose is freedom to produce.

Theory B- People are subjects of the government, that laws are passed for the common good or for the benefit of the State. In such a State there is a Monopoly of Lethal Force by the State. Only they can harm others except in self defense. In Britain even the concept of Self Defense is under attack. People have been jailed for "fighting back" beyond a proportional defense. This is insane but that's a Labour Government for you.

Theory A is the idea upon which the United States was founded. Contained in the Declaration of Independence.

To a believer in Theory A it makes no sense to "register" one's source of personal power with the State. The State has no damn business taking it away from you, except as punishment for a crime and as such has no business knowing what you have until you break the law.

Some of us think that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment to the US Bill of Rights was akin to the old tradition of Archers in England, that to be Well Regulated (accurate shooters) one must practice routinely. Which you cannot do when the State keeps all of the weapons under its control. To me the 2nd Amendment does not explicitly outlaw gun registration, only forbids prohibition of owning a gun.


Theory B is the foundation of a typical modern State, such a Great Britain, which changed from the Divine Right of Kings to a Constitutional Monarchy, and finally today to a Parliamentary Democracy with a Royal Figurehead.

To someone who believes in Theory B owning a firearm is a privilege which can be taken away at any old time. Registering a firearm facilitates confiscation of a gun, either from an individual because of some deviancy on their part or because the State has decided to ban some or all firearms.

The grotesque over reaction in Britain after the Dunblane Massacre is a good example of where registration can lead. Handguns in Britain were kept in "shooting clubs" and were not permitted to be carried on the streets. The Dunblane shooter broke the law. Oh well...


My practical concern with registration is that registration lists have been abused by gun control groups, who have published them. If a woman has a right to privacy under Roe v Wade than certainly I have a right to privacy from the public regarding what I own. I am concerned that Insurance companies may be sued or bullied into levying insurance increases upon those who have registered firearms. There has also been use of gun registration lists to confiscate guns.


To a person who believes in Theory B, owning a firearm is a gesture of political defiance. When you own a gun under a State which claims monopoly of Lethal Force you are challenging its authority. Under such a government owning a gun is a political act.

Owning a car does not challenge the State since the State does not claim a monopoly on transportation. Owning a car is not a political act.

Registering Cars is a mechanism for generating revenue, from the sales of license plates and annual registration fees. Each car is already uniquely identified by its VIN. Aside making it convenient for Police a license plate has no practical purpose except revenue generation. Even auto theft is not an issue - the victim would hand over their VIN number to police.

Many US states have gun registration and have not seen decreases in crime. In several instances gun confiscation followed registration (California and NYC assault weapon bans, and in some cases New Orleans gun confiscation following Katrina).

I see no compelling reason for a national gun registry. I see every reason to be suspicious of the idea of registering guns, especially given the hostility of some interest groups in the US towards ownership of firearms. At this point in history it would be practically impossible to confiscate firearms in the US. A national gun registry would simplify the process of confiscation, with no gain in terms of public safety.

Gene

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by SailDesign

Did we take Ronald Ray-gun seriuosly when he ran for President of the Whole Shebang? Kinda....

Yes. Some of us literally bled for Ronald Reagan. Later, once we learned what a screw up he was about certain things, we regretted supporting him.

I do not understand the Cult of Reagan. Most of the people that I know who idolized Reagan did not understand how Reagan betrayed his own principals, especially about the War on Drugs, and later how he supported the Brady Campaign. They compare W Bush to Reagan, but I remember Reagan, and he would have dismissed Bush's spending and pointless wars as foolishness.

That being said, was Reagan a stupid man? No. He was very idealistic. I think to a large extent the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc was facilitated (but not caused) by Reagan's pressure on the USSR. Many people in Eastern Europe I think owe Reagan a debt of gratitude.

Gene

[tomato]

Still sitting on my hands!!

[GeneW]

Looks like the EPA has ruled in agreement with the Courts that Carbon Dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" are a menace to public well being. They are doing this under the aegis of the Clean Air Act.

I was not aware that the Clean Air act allowed for computer models and shoddy experimental data when considering a change in law.

It's easy to see how NOx can lead to photochemical smog, how SOx can damage plants or how soot can damage property. These are easily demonstrable.

Human caused global warming, at least to me and many others, is a whole other issue. The science is simply not there at this time in history. Science is not consensus, science is data and interpretation of data, and not computer models, anecdotes and so on. Certainly science follows the rules of logic, among them being rejecting arguments that rely upon authority.

It's ironic to me that the US FDA insists upon clinical studies to show the efficacy of a drug but the EPA goes along with computer models and anecdotes.

I'm sure that owners of the Chicago Climate Exchange are warming up for the big shafting that they're going to deliver to the American people. I am also confident that manufacturers in China and India are getting ready to take more good paying manufacturing jobs as American businesses are pushed offshore.

As far as "Green Jobs". Where, besides paperwork and enforcement? If consumers demanded green energy we'd have it. They don't, because they are not convinced that it's worthwhile.

Gene

[SailDesign]

Originally Posted by GeneW

It's ironic to me that the US FDA insists upon clinical studies to show the efficacy of a drug but the EPA goes along with computer models and anecdotes.

No contention here, Gene, but the EPA do not have the luxury of "full-scale" tests here. The world itself IS the full-scale test. What do you want to do if it fails?
The penalty for failure in this case is quite literally the end of life as we know it. Say what you want about methodology, but this is the case. The FDA can "afford" to have tests run ,and people die or be seriously injured in such tests. The "Patient" in the EPA's case is all of us, and I'm not willing to take the risk that their projections are wrong. Even if their projections are RIGHT we are not in a good place right now.
Science is about more than "cold, hard facts", science is the knowledge to make informed projections. I do it every day with knowng roughly how my boats perform. Computer predictions. Not perfect, but when it's all you have, it's better than nothing.

[PETERPOOP]

What do you guys think about the bilderbergers, illuminati, new world order, bohemian grove, the skulls, free masons, alan greenspan.

[NJBob]

Originally Posted by PETERPOOP

What do you guys think about the bilderbergers, illuminati, new world order, bohemian grove, the skulls, free masons, alan greenspan.

I can barely understand and deal with legitimate governmental organizations. I often feel that secret societies/big money and power are pulling the strings of our puppet government but it's pointless for a small potato like me to concern myself about it other than interesting coversation. I think I'd rather not know. Real information or connection to some of these people can get you dead. I'm fine with my life the way it is except that taxes in NJ really suck.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by SailDesign

Science is about more than "cold, hard facts", science is the knowledge to make informed projections. I do it every day with knowng roughly how my boats perform. Computer predictions. Not perfect, but when it's all you have, it's better than nothing.

Sometimes a faulty projection or model is worse than nothing. You have the illusion of knowing what is going on but in reality you're getting more and more lost.

I'm in engineering now. I work with power conversion systems. We also use models. We also subject our work to tests, as you do with your boats.

I have seen engineers make mistakes too.

I used to work in R&D, on a problem that has plagued one industry since the 1950s. They're still, at this time, hashing out the details.

Science isn't knowledge. Science is a process of acquiring knowledge. One must be willing to jettison a model at any time when it does not fit the facts. As my former Boss in R&D used to say, "Let the data speak". Projections to not yield data, they yield forecasts. Woe to the person who confuses experimental data with forecasts.

Gene

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by SailDesign

The world itself IS the full-scale test. What do you want to do if it fails? The penalty for failure in this case is quite literally the end of life as we know it.

If the US embraces some of the extreme carbon limits we will see the end of life as we know it, for certain rather than maybe.

Originally Posted by SailDesign

The "Patient" in the EPA's case is all of us, and I'm not willing to take the risk that their projections are wrong. Even if their projections are RIGHT we are not in a good place right now.

If we were really "addicted to oil" the US government would be working on effective substitutes for petroleum. They wouldn't be wasting time and energy on satrapies like corn based ethanol, saw grass based ethanol, and other pointless measures.

Instead they be working on coal gasification, increased use of nuclear energy and pouring much more money into nuclear fusion R&D. They wouldn't be binding us to peasant energy.

I watch what these characters do - what they're about is buying votes with subsidies and levying novel taxes onto the populace. That's not going to help anyone but themselves.

Gene

[Phaeton]

The conspiracy center in my brain tells me, that all the new hybrids the government will force GM to produce will sell a lot better when traditional combustion engine cars are illegal lol.