Flip.

I saw it. Can you point me to a post that is actually responsive?

The part where I make fun of you and others for bristling and rattling off serious arguments and inapplicable parallels against a science-fiction-esque one-off that's interesting to imagine yet that (almost) everyone knows can't be taken any other way because the reality for it can't ever exist.

So, given the fact that you have established your position as "no one advocates for completely unregulated gun rights" we are now to a simple point of establishing where the regulations should exist, where the line between "okay, access to this is protected" vs "no, you can't mount a 130 cal turrent gun to the top of your SUV you nut!"

No one's ever argued the latter, so this is just another straw man. It's certainly not an example of RKBA supporters "whoring" the Second Amendment's "fundamentals," as you put it earlier.

I saw it. Can you point me to a post that is actually responsive?

The part where I make fun of you and others

So, your answer would be no, then.

Although, I admit I'm also happy to admit you've pretty much won the gun debate.

So, your answer would be no, then.

No less responsive than using the ACA in a gun debate.

No one's ever argued the latter, so this is just another straw man.

Don't use terms you don't understand. You wouldn't know logical reasoning and its fallacies if I spent a semester trying to teach you something useful.

We are now publicly attesting, from your statements above and on the previous page, that you believe regulation of arms is reasonable, practical, and even worthwhile.

The next question is where the line between what is allowed and what is regulated against is drawn.

We are now publicly attesting, from your statements above and on the previous page, that you believe regulation of arms is reasonable, practical, and even worthwhile.

Yes, unlike the constitutional flimflammery practiced by your crowd, I believe the plain text of the Second Amendment (and the Constitution itself, for that matter) means what it says.

Yes, unlike the constitutional flimflammery practiced by your crowd, I believe the plain text of the Second Amendment (and the Constitution itself, for that matter) means what it says.

Are you incapable of having a conversation without making up insane ramblings fueled by the voices in your had, numbnuts?

Okay. We now are in agreement (!) that the "right to keep and bear arms" is reasonably and legally governed by regulation and not "universal" or "fundamental" in any existential sense.

Where is the line between acceptable (semi-automatic rifles, perhaps?) and unacceptable (SUV turrents) drawn? Please try to be specific and address the question at hand instead of the questions you the cartoons in your waking dreams mumble about when you're needing some argument you think you might be able to refute easily.

I believe the plain text of the Second Amendment (and the Constitution itself, for that matter) means what it says

You're smarter than the Supreme Court, then. The Second Amendment means something, but the major Supreme Court decisions involving it have been unable to do much except arrive at political and pragmatic compromises. (These include US v. Miller, 1939; DC v. Heller, 2008, and McDonald v. Chicago, 2010.) Basically, the Court has found that the "Militia" qualification of the right to bear arms does or doesn't apply depending on what kinds of weapons one is talking about, and doesn't apply at all to handguns.

The Second Amendment, as people have pointed out here amid various hilarity, grew (or at least was rationalized) out of the old institutions of civilian militias that could be called up to chastise Indians, harass the Redcoats, put down the Whiskey Rebellion, or whatever. People had a right to carry military weapons so that they could join in these activities, and probably lots of the founders thought they just plain had a natural right to carry military weapons.

One no longer has a right to carry military weapons. I'm not talking Sam's nukes, I'm talking standard-issue fully automatic M16 rifles, the kind the National Guard carries. One doesn't have the right to have various weird non-military #### either (that's the point of US v. Miller): sawn-off shotguns, specifically, but lots of other murderous weapons as well.

There really isn't any pretense anymore that the "well-regulated Militia" has much to do with gun laws or the Second Amendment. The recent handgun cases are not about militia or military weaponry. It's a case where the text of the Constitution apparently means exactly what it doesn't, and isn't really about what it purports to be. And that's fine by me. These are, ultimately, political and practical matters; it's not like the Constitution is some magic prophetic guide to life in the 21st Century.

Okay. We now are in agreement (!) that the "right to keep and bear arms" is reasonably and legally governed by regulation and not "universal" or "fundamental" in any existential sense.

When was there disagreement on this among RKBA types? No credible RKBA supporter has ever argued that private citizens in the U.S. had an absolutely unrestrained right to own any and all firearms or other weaponry, up to and including the "suitcase nukes" in your earlier ramblings. To the extent there was ever any debate about "regulation," it was centered around liberals' popular pre-Heller claim that Americans had *no* constitutional right to keep and bear arms whatsoever.

To the extent there was ever any debate about "regulation," it was centered around liberals' popular pre-Heller claim that Americans had *no* constitutional right to keep and bear arms whatsoever.

It must be a convenient thing to live in a world where you make up everything you argue against. You're pointless.

Try to read Bob's post at 310 and figure out what it means "in plain English."

It must be a convenient thing to live in a world where you make up everything you argue against. You're pointless.

You seem to believe you've scored a big "gotcha" but all I've seen is a bunch of gibberish. But, hey, keep talking about "suitcase nukes" and machine guns mounted on Ford Explorers. Knock yourself out.

Try to read Bob's post at 310 and figure out what it means "in plain English."

I didn't find much of Bob's #3010 to be persuasive or, for that matter, historically accurate. For one thing, the Supreme Court directed Washington, D.C., to issue a handgun permit to Dick Heller, so apparently the Second Amendment does, indeed, protect the right to possess functional handguns. For another, there was basically no dispute regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment for the country's first 100-plus years, but private citizens weren't driving around in tanks or mounting machine guns on their Studebakers or getting into drunken grenade fights.

Heller and McDonald are still relatively new and there are some lines left to be drawn, but let's not pretend the Second Amendment is some big mystery. The Second Amendment plainly states, and the Supreme Court has twice affirmed, that Americans have the right to possess firearms. Lefty gimmicks like tshipman's $1,000 tax on bullets are just fantasies. Like it or not, this particular battle is over. You guys lost.

The Second Amendment plainly states, and the Supreme Court has twice affirmed, that Americans have the right to possess firearms.

The BTF righties have argued convincingly that five dorks in black robes saying something is so doesn't mean anything, so I'm going to take Heller with a grain of salt.

Like it or not, this particular battle is over. You guys lost.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Or when ObamaCare was declared constitutional? It's never over!

Heller and McDonald are still relatively new and there are some lines left to be drawn, but let's not pretend the Second Amendment is some big mystery. The Second Amendment plainly states, and the Supreme Court has twice affirmed, that Americans have the right to possess firearms. Lefty gimmicks like tshipman's $1,000 tax on bullets are just fantasies. Like it or not, this particular battle is over. You guys lost.

Run and hide, little child. I grow tired of trying to teach you to think. I suppose the world needs ditch diggers too.

Run and hide, little child. I grow tired of trying to teach you to think. I suppose the world needs ditch diggers too.

I'm sure it's hard being The Smartest Man in Sam's World. I guess that's just the cross you have to bear.

On the plus side, at least you're not out stabbing people in the neck today.

(Speaking of neck wounds, has anyone heard from Andy? I bet he has about 500 replies drafted for when his suspension is up.)

I'm sure it's hard being The Smartest Man in Sam's World.

Well, that's a thing you'll always have to theorize about, now isn't it? But don't worry about it much. I'll always need someone to bring me my drinks.

Q: "Since we agree there should be regulation some sort, where do you think we should draw the line?"

A: "Stop bringing up strawmen!"

wha...?

Q: "Since we agree there should be regulation some sort, where do you think we should draw the line?"

A: "Stop bringing up strawmen!"

Great, another guy who has trouble following along.

Despite Sam's bloviating, no one here claimed Americans have a "fundamental" unrestrained right to possess firearms and other weapons. Thus, his whole shtick about gun-rights advocates "whoring" our "fundamentals" was contrived.

The Second Amendment plainly states, and the Supreme Court has twice affirmed, that Americans have the right to possess firearms. Lefty gimmicks like tshipman's $1,000 tax on bullets are just fantasies. Like it or not, this particular battle is over. You guys lost.

Oh, I thought we all agreed that liberals lost this one? The best we can hope for is to hold the line on gun control in liberal states--and even that's a challenge. Gun control isn't a second term sort of project. It's like a 40 year project. I'd like to see better regulation, but it's really not even close to feasible. Not even in a political environment where Republicans are like a 30% minority in the House and Senate. I don't know if Democrats would pass expanded gun regulation if they had 90% majorities.

We lost on gun control. We won on gay rights. I think everyone agrees on this?

Edit: I think the only real political battles going on anymore are healthcare (I think we won on this, but am not 100% sure), climate change (think we'll likely win, but put that at much lower odds), and abortion (I thought we won, but apparently it's not quite over). There's also a battle on copyright/IP law, but that's a populist vs. elites issue that doesn't break down on party lines.

Double edit: Oh, duh, there's also the top tax rate, where Democrats really only have themselves to blame if they lose, and campaign finance reform, where it appears it will take a constitutional amendment and some improved thinking on the issue.

We lost on gun control. We won on gay rights. I think everyone agrees on this?

I read the $1,000-per-bullet tax idea as meaning the battle was still on in some quarters. The rhetoric after incidents like Aurora certainly doesn't give one the impression there's a true bipartisan consensus on gun rights, although, admittedly, the Dems tend to just make a lot of noise while making it clear they don't intend to propose anything.

As for gay rights, the lines are blurry when it comes to defining "we." Libertarians have been on the winning side of both issues, while some of the most prominent liberals still can't bring themselves to provide a strong endorsement of gay marriage. (It's always fun to point out that Dick Cheney was years ahead of liberal icons like Obama on the issue.)

Edit: I think the only real political battles going on anymore are ...

You didn't mention it, but I see government spending as the biggest political issue. Unfortunately, it's only being addressed in the campaign in non-serious ways, although telling the truth is probably a surefire way to lose the election.

(Speaking of neck wounds, has anyone heard from Andy? I bet he has about 500 replies drafted for when his suspension is up.)

I emailed Andy with the news that people were seeking a status update of his time in exile, and he has passed the following along:

"SERVING SENTENCE WITH A SMILE. USING PRISON TIME TO TRIPLE DVD RECORDING OUTPUT. NABBED 6 "WOMEN IN PRISON" PIX AND 5 PRE-CODE BARBARA STANWYCKS AND LOOKING FORWARD TO 24 HOURS OF TOSHIRO MIFUNE ON AUGUST 9TH. LOVE AND PEACE TO ALL."

Pre-code Barbara Stanwyck movies are fantastic.

I emailed Andy with the news that people were seeking a status update of his time in exile, and he has passed the following along:

Thanks, Ray. Glad Andy is enjoying his vacation.

Thanks, Ray. Glad Andy is enjoying his vacation.

Actually, a month away from all of us would do anyone some good.

Great, another guy who has trouble following along.

No Corky, that's still just you right now. Clearly you are not particular skilled at following basic logical constructions.

I see government spending as the biggest political issue.

Not to be glib, but what part of government spending? Unless you're in the "Roads and an Army" camp, then this line could mean anything.

You didn't mention it, but I see government spending as the biggest political issue. Unfortunately, it's only being addressed in the campaign in non-serious ways, although telling the truth is probably a surefire way to lose the election.

The obvious interpretation of the lack of serious discussion and of the political consequences of serious discussion is that you lost that argument.

No Corky, that's still just you right now. Clearly you are not particular skilled at following basic logical constructions.

Yes, anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot. You've "taught" us that a thousand times.

The Second Amendment provides Americans with some fundamental rights without those rights being unrestrained. Despite your claims, there's no "gotcha" in there.

***

Not to be glib, but what part of government spending? Unless you're in the "Roads and an Army" camp, then this line could mean anything.

All of it: Entitlements, military, foreign aid, etc. The current rates of spending are unsustainable. It's funny how a lot of the same people who like to tell us to look abroad for solutions to our problems don't seem to want to acknowledge that Europe's problems are a harbinger of things to come in the U.S.

You didn't mention it, but I see government spending as the biggest political issue. Unfortunately, it's only being addressed in the campaign in non-serious ways, although telling the truth is probably a surefire way to lose the election.

This isn't really a battle though. Romney claims that he would do some version of the Ryan budget, but when push comes to shove, you know he isn't actually going to voucherize Medicare. His claim is that he wants to increase the defense budget.

Since neither party wants to cut Medicare and only one party wants to cut defense, there isn't a real political battle over spending. The only relevant fight is on the top tax bracket, because that's the only real piece that is different between the two parties.

Since neither party wants to cut Medicare and only one party wants to cut defense, there isn't a real political battle over spending. The only relevant fight is on the top tax bracket, because that's the only real piece that is different between the two parties.

I agree neither side wants to address spending in a major way, but I still see spending as the biggest political issue in America. As with 9/11 and Katrina, etc., politicians are going to have to deal with the country's finances sooner rather than later, whether they like it or not.

All the talk about raising taxes on "the rich" is just a silly diversion, like the gimmicky debate over the so-called Buffett Rule. Those possible tax increases would hardly put a dent in the deficit, let alone the debt. Even if Obama could seize 100 percent of the wealth of the Forbes 400 — not their income, but their total net worth — that would only drop the national debt from $15,800,000,000,000 to $14,300,000,000,000. Then what?

All the talk about raising taxes on "the rich" is just a silly diversion, like the gimmicky debate over the so-called Buffett Rule. Those possible tax increases would hardly put a dent in the deficit, let alone the debt.

Letting the top rate rise to 39.6% would raise (according to CBPP) 829 Billion over 10 years, or roughly 82.9 billion per year.

The federal budget deficit is projected for 1.33 trillion for 2012, although this amount may be slightly high going forwards due to (theoretically) an improving economy generating more tax receipts.

Letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire just for those people making more than 250K would reduce the federal deficit for 2013 by roughly 6.2%.

Instituting the "Buffet Rule" as proposed in Obama's 2012 budget would result in 36.7 billion per year, reducing a deficit of 1.33 trillion by 2.75%.

Combined, the two measures would reduce the federal budget deficit by a hair less (8.99%) than 9% of 1.33 trillion.

What deficit reducing measures do you think that Republicans might introduce that would cut more than 119 billion dollars per year?

Edit: (please keep in mind that the Rominee's current plans increase the deficit substantially)

politicians are going to have to deal with the country's finances sooner rather than later, whether they like it or not.

I've been hearing some version of this for thirty years. And at least back then short-term Treasury rates were in excess of 10%.

By "finances" you really mean "accounting" and one of the great lessons from the private sector is to run away from companies that make decisions based on accounting.

The Second Amendment provides Americans with some fundamental rights without those rights being unrestrained. Despite your claims, there's no "gotcha" in there.

I've asked a simple question. Given that we agree that gun rights are not unrestrained, the question is "where does the restraint occur." And that, of course, is not a question you are capable of answering outside of empty bromides and pablum. It's a simple question, really. Why should the line be drawn in front of automatic fire weapons but behind 100-round clips or armor piercing rounds?

By "finances" you really mean "accounting" and one of the great lessons from the private sector is to run away from companies that make decisions based on accounting.

Pretend banks have pretend electronic bytes and bits that have to be paid back or the world will end.

I'd agree that defense spending is a issue but the US seem to be getting a really bad bang for the buck for their spending on health care related stuff... now other major industrial nation's health care spending is far from perfect but the interesting problem we're seeing is that the US isn't actually spending less per capita on healthcare... yet they're obviously not getting the same benifits... so where is all the money going ? the US is spending at somethingl ike 18% of the GDP on healthcare... that's actually "ALOT" higher than most European country (like double!), yet no sane person without a striped and star colored glasses will tell you that the average joe is getting the same benifits as a normal European dude.

What deficit reducing measures do you think that Republicans might introduce that would cut more than 119 billion dollars per year?

Edit: (please keep in mind that the Rominee's current plans increase the deficit substantially)

I'm not arguing this as a partisan issue. As I said above, it's obvious neither party or candidate is serious about the issue. The Dems want to spend us into oblivion within x years and the GOP wants to spend us into oblivion within x+1 years.

***

By "finances" you really mean "accounting" and one of the great lessons from the private sector is to run away from companies that make decisions based on accounting.

If it's just accounting, then why were the bailouts so urgent? At some point, actual money needs to be in actual hands. Europe's learning this lesson the hard way, and the U.S. is next in line.

It's kind of amazing that, five years into such a substantial economic downturn, so many people still believe it's cyclical rather than structural. People spoke of the "New Reality" back around 2008, but that was forgotten like one of yesterdays tweets without any action being taken. Instead, our "leaders" wasted a month debating a gimmick that would reduce a $1,330,000,000,000 budget deficit by a whopping 2.75 percent (per tshipman's #3032).

Despite Sam's bloviating, no one here claimed Americans have a "fundamental" unrestrained right to possess firearms and other weapons. Thus, his whole shtick about gun-rights advocates "whoring" our "fundamentals" was contrived.

Again, wha...?? This is a complete non sequitur in response to a pretty simple, straightforward question.

Again, wha...?? This is a complete non sequitur in response to a pretty simple, straightforward question.

That's funny. Sam started this off in #2983 with a straw man argument about owning "suitcase nukes," which absolutely no credible RKBA advocate has ever claimed to be a "fundamental" Second Amendment right. He then doubled down on the inanity with the verbose and only semi-coherent #2988, in which he declared that RKBA advocates were "whoring" the "fundamentals" of the Second Amendment by refusing to back his right to own a suitcase nuke. In typical Sam fashion, he spent the next five or 10 comments humoring himself with his special brand of nastiness and self-aggrandizement. None of it was simple or straightforward, and all of it was premised on the faulty notion that "fundamental" rights must be entirely "unrestrained."

Are you really not understanding what I'm talking about? Because the things you are saying have nothing to do with the question/response that baffled me. Again:

Q: Granted that we all agree both "no restrictions whatsoever" and "there is no right to any guns" are incorrect positions claimed by no one, where in the middle do you yourself draw the line?

You: No one ever claimed no restraints! Strawman! Obfuscation!

Me: Wha...?

I'm asking about your response to the question, not whether Sam made you mad with other things he said.

I'm asking about your response to the question, not whether Sam made you mad with other things he said.

What's the point of answering a question that's couched in a "heads he wins, tails I lose" fashion? I reject the premise that RKBA advocates are "whoring the fundamentals" simply by acknowledging that some regulation of 2A rights is constitutional.

Two more comments about guns:

OK, so firearms and ammunition have some legitimate uses. And pseudoephedrine cold tablets also have some legitimate uses. Which should be easier to obtain? It's been reported that the Aurora shooter bought 5000 or 6000 rounds of ammunition (probably mostly for his AR-15) on line. What do you think would happen if you tried to buy 5000 pseudoephedrine pills? Even if you could do that at all from a legal source, which I'm not sure you can, it would probably cause someone to investigate you.

My other point is about an armed society being a polite society, or the idea that the probability that a significant number of persons are armed deters crime.

The probability that a significant number of persons are armed makes police officers edgier. People get shot dead by police. I don't know what's been happening to that particular rate - I'd like some stats on it - but I'm pretty sure that the current rate is higher than it should be. I personally know the family of a man who was shot dead by police who thought he was armed, when he wasn't.

Which should be easier to obtain? It's been reported that the Aurora shooter bought 5000 or 6000 rounds of ammunition (probably mostly for his AR-15) on line. What do you think would happen if you tried to buy 5000 pseudoephedrine pills?

Those are big, scary numbers, but I'm not sure what they prove here. A single shooter can't easily carry 5,000 rounds of ammunition* and it's hard to imagine a scenario in which anything close to 5,000 shots could be fired. I haven't seen an exact number of shots that were fired in Aurora, but I'm guessing it wasn't much higher than might normally be fired on a trip to a shooting range. In other words, unless people were limited to owning 20 bullets at a time, it's hard to see how a limitation on bullet sales would have impeded the Aurora shooter.


* EDIT: I suppose 5,000 rounds could be carried in box form.

I dont have much to add, but "Drunken Grenade Fight" is an awesome punk/ska band name.

Oh and happy Operation Barbarossa day!

What's the point of answering a question that's couched in a "heads he wins, tails I lose" fashion? I reject the premise that RKBA advocates are "whoring the fundamentals" simply by acknowledging that some regulation of 2A rights is constitutional.

The question I transcribed above posed contained nothing of the sort. It is just asking where you draw the line, not accusing you of prostitution for merely acknowledging that there is a line. I have no idea why you insist on acting like a simple question is a personal insult. If you don't have an answer, just say that, rather than acting like you are being persecuted by things that aren't being said.

I'll try to answer the question.

You start with the presumption that citizens have a legitimate right to possess most weapons that they can prove capable of handling safely and competently. Then you eliminate certain weapons immediately on the grounds that no individual could possibly be trusted to handle them safely (suitcase nukes, tanks, etc.); such weapons are capable of dealing such tremendous damage that they are only "safe" to use under the structure of a military. That gets rid of the most ridiculous examples.

I don't have a problem with laws that prohibit people from using fully-automatic weapons outside of a designated facility (you can own and operate a machine gun or fully-automatic assault rifle, but it only may be stored at a gun range; you can't bring it home with you). It's a bit harder to articulate precisely where to draw the line here, but I have an idea.

Citizens (after showing appropriate knowledge and proficiency) should be allowed to possess any weapon that is non-military in nature. If the weapon is appropriate for hunting or self-defense, it is legitimate to own as an individual. If the weapon serves no purpose other than to kill a group of people quickly, then it's reasonable to limit public use of such weapons to the military. (I do not believe local police should be using fully-automatic assault rifles or machine guns either.)

The amount of damage that a weapon can cause should be a strong factor in how much competence a citizen should be required to demonstrate. It's far easier to obtain a license to drive a car than it is to obtain a license to operate a helicopter.

I didn't find much of Bob's #3010 to be persuasive

It's not meant to be persuasive; it's just some background on the Second Amendment and its extremely limited case law. The central point is that the Second Amendment, unusually, gives a justification for the right it guarantees. (There's no similar clause in the Third, e.g.: "A good Breakfast being more enjoyable without some lardass Soldier ogling thy Wife, no Soldier shall, in Time of Peace be quartered in any House …") And paradoxically, that justification is a dead letter (no court or legislature will actually sanction the private bearing of 21st-century military weapons), while recent decisions have upheld the right to own weapons of very low military value (handguns), for private defense of the home or whatever.

In deciding US v. Miller, the Court invoked the militia justification, and in deciding DC v. Heller, they had to ignore it. That's what courts do when the text of the Constitution is ambiguous, or obnoxious to current understandings and political realities. That's all.

Although I have no plan of reading every page of these political discussions, I do plan on stopping in from time to time. Reading over this page caused me to send out a couple of warnings.

I don't really care if you guys want to continue to debate stuff over and over and over. I do expect, however, not to see petty personal insults when I stop in. Continuing to act in such a manner will get accounts suspended.

Misc, because I took the weekend off:

* Gun Control: Liberals lost a while back. Doesn't mean they should not keep banging the drum and slowly building support, because more can be done within the constitution than ios currently being done. But don't expect much progress in the short term. But I admit I find the whole debate tiresome and essentially unchanged since the '90s (maybe earlier).

* Gay Rights: Liberals will win. It is not over yet, but the writing is on the wall. But like we learned with Abortion rights, even when you think you have won you can't let up.

* US Government spending out of control: It really isn't. It is fairly small as a percent of the economy. Smaller than I would like, but I would also like better (according to my values naturally) allocations of dollars. Also I love people who claim to want to address it seriously, but don't state what they would cut. If you are not going to cut interest payments, defense, or wildly popular government commitments (Social Security for example) - none of which can be cut dramtically for polical reasons - then you are just talking. If you do want to cut one of those I would love to hear how.

* The Debt & Tax Rates: Yes raising them will help the budget. And the Debt is not really the issue, it is the deficit (I can explain why if you care), and the deficit is not really that big an issue. it may be in the future, but it isn't now and even a cursory look at the financial markets for US debt and passing belief in the magic of free markets should reassure anyone on that.

* European melt down = too much government spending -> end of "Big Government": Anyone who peddles this is really looking for facts to support their belief and truly does not understand what is happening in Europe and why. The issues in Europe have very little to do with government spending and much more to do with monetary policy, politics, and the Euro. People who talk about European spending being the issue also talk about houshold budgets as an analogy for governmental budgets and clearly don't know what they are talking about.

Going back to DKR:

Anyhow, I saw Dark Knight Rises. It was spectacularly top-heavy, and not altogether notable. I mean, still fun, but no real masterpiece. To be honest, the dialogue and characters were way less nuanced than I imagined they would be. Even Inception, which I didn't think was OMG super, had better dialogue and character-building.

I didn't read many reviews, but the few I read suggested it was going to be jaw-dropping. It wasn't. It was a fun movie, but not the stunning conclusion to the trilogy I was hoping for. To avoid spoilers, I won't say more than that on the plot itself. Catwoman was not well-developed-- her character was way better in Arkham City than it was in DKR. Bane was a great villain, and I was pleased they decided to go away from the "I have tubes of chemicals that make me stronger, and I have decided to leave these tubes unprotected" power source in the comic.

Wondering if anyone else who watched the film found the random public killing throughout it a little tougher to watch than normal, in light of Friday?

Also found Inception to be overhyped-- another fun film, but saw it after it had been in theaters for a while and was expecting something that was actually more concept-heavy, rather than a film that hinted at depth but never made good on providing it.

Citizens (after showing appropriate knowledge and proficiency) should be allowed to possess any weapon that is non-military in nature. If the weapon is appropriate for hunting or self-defense, it is legitimate to own as an individual. If the weapon serves no purpose other than to kill a group of people quickly, then it's reasonable to limit public use of such weapons to the military. (I do not believe local police should be using fully-automatic assault rifles or machine guns either.)

Neither agreeing nor disagreeing with this formulation, I'll simply point out that this formulation completely undermines the plain text and stated intentions of the writers of the Constitution. If citizens are explicitly denied military grade weapons than no argument can be made that the right to bear arms is functional to a well formed militia.

The point of the 2nd Amendment was that citizens should keep and bear military grade arms, in case they needed to be mustered into a militia to kill natives, or Redcoats, or Canadians. As American society has moved further and further away from the idea of a citizen militia - embracing fully the idea of standing professional armies for a century or so, now - the need for citizen militias have faded and disappeared. In their place, the so-called "RKBA" crowd has replaced the practical need the founders wished to address with a nostalgic, fantasy driven notion of gun rights completely separated from any practical concern. The 2nd Amendment has become nothing more than a culture war yapping point. No one in America has the right to keep and bear arms that would in any way prevent another nation, or a tyrannical arm of the American government, from imposing its will militarily. As such, we're left with this kabuki theater where gun fetishists run around pretending that their right to hunt deer is somehow pivotal to the functioning of the 21st century American market-state.

It's silly.

What's the point of answering a question that's couched in a "heads he wins, tails I lose" fashion?

Intellectual honesty.

It's not the couching of the question that you're concerned with. It's that the obvious result of thinking through the problem in any sort of rigorous fashion leads you to this conundrum. You don't want to be one of those "crazy libertarians" who defend the right to keep and bear *all arms* because that makes you look silly and detached from reality. But you don't want to address the fact that once you've established that some regulation is not only acceptable, but necessary, you have to make some sort of rational argument as to why your decision on "where to draw the regulatory line" is better than, oh, Bernie Sanders' idea of where to draw the regulatory boundary.

But to date, you've shown no ability whatsoever to address this simple, basic question, preferring to hide behind empty bromides and rock throwing instead.

* European melt down = too much government spending -> end of "Big Government": Anyone who peddles this is really looking for facts to support their belief and truly does not understand what is happening in Europe and why. The issues in Europe have very little to do with government spending and much more to do with monetary policy, politics, and the Euro. People who talk about European spending being the issue also talk about houshold budgets as an analogy for governmental budgets and clearly don't know what they are talking about.

Eurodoom is weird because basically nobody seems to really know what it's about (including Euro policy makers), and people like to use whatever happens as justification for action or inaction here.

It's bizarre.

I am inclined to believe that the problem with Europe is tied up in monetary policy, but I also don't think I really know.

Eurodoom is weird because basically nobody seems to really know what it's about (including Euro policy makers), and people like to use whatever happens as justification for action or inaction here.

A'yup. Eurodoom (which I love as a term by the way) is just a giant Rorschach blot for people to write their own assumptions on.

No less responsive than using the ACA in a gun debate.

Never bring a scalpel to a gunfight.

Best eurodoom argument i have heard -- and the only article i have ever read in the Columbia U alumni mag -- is that its the Euro itself, and particular not letting underproducing countries (Greece Spain Italy) float their own currency

Eurodoom (which I love as a term by the way)

Wait, Eurodoom isn't a Scandinavian black metal band?

Eurodoom is weird because basically nobody seems to really know what it's about (including Euro policy makers), and people like to use whatever happens as justification for action or inaction here.

I think it is pretty well known (Economics is not that complex), at least the why. The problem is what to do about it. They (Europe) have boxed themselves into a corner where all the options are bad and any truly useful options are political suicide.

So more properly it is a monetary/political mess primarily. There are some fiscal elements, but that is very secondary to the root issues. I can give a long explanation and/or try to point at some resources (but not now - I am a bit too busy).

So more properly it is a monetary/political mess primarily. There are some fiscal elements, but that is very secondary to the root issues.

This is completely true. In the long run, there are two and only two solutions: terminate the euro (with obviously bad consequences for the continent), or genuinely consolidate monetary policy into a single unit with a genuine central bank (which obviously is a step in the direction of a central European government, and there remains a whole lot of resistance to that, especially from the smaller countries). They're waist deep in the big muddy.

They're waist deep in the big muddy.

I hope it works out better for them than it did for the guy in the Pete Seeger song:

"Well, you might not want to draw conclusions
I'll leave that to yourself
Maybe you're still walking, maybe you're still talking
Maybe you've still got your health.
But every time I hear the news
That old feeling comes back on;
We're waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fools kept yelling to push on.

Knee deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fools keep yelling to push on
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fools keep yelling to push on
Waist deep! Neck deep! we'll be drowning before too long
We're neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fools keep yelling to push on!"

This is completely true. In the long run, there are two and only two solutions: terminate the euro (with obviously bad consequences for the continent), or genuinely consolidate monetary policy into a single unit with a genuine central bank (which obviously is a step in the direction of a central European government, and there remains a whole lot of resistance to that, especially from the smaller countries).

They could also allow some of the countries to exit, as a possible thrid alternative. Of course where does the in/out line get drawn and because of how things are structured once it starts it is hard to see where it ends (and if it ends with only a few countries still in the Euro, then that is the end of the Euro).

They are in trouble, but right now they seem determined to string it out as long as possible, so likely it won't resolve one way or another until 2013 or beyond - giving Romney plenty of time to move his money to a safe haven (/end cheap shot).

right now they seem determined to string it out as long as possible

I perceive it more as indecision/political gridlock than any kind of a purposeful determination, but the effect is the same.

It's kind of amazing that, five years into such a substantial economic downturn, so many people still believe it's cyclical rather than structural. People spoke of the "New Reality" back around 2008, but that was forgotten like one of yesterdays tweets without any action being taken. Instead, our "leaders" wasted a month debating a gimmick that would reduce a $1,330,000,000,000 budget deficit by a whopping 2.75 percent (per tshipman's #3032).

The Great Depression lasted more than a decade and, as events proved, was cyclical rather than structural. Since the basic economic issues facing us are the same that existed back then (with a somewhat more interventionist goverrnment taking off the hard edge), why wouldn't the same. be true now?

You don't want to be one of those "crazy libertarians" who defend the right to keep and bear *all arms* because that makes you look silly and detached from reality. But you don't want to address the fact that once you've established that some regulation is not only acceptable, but necessary, you have to make some sort of rational argument as to why your decision on "where to draw the regulatory line" is better than, oh, Bernie Sanders' idea of where to draw the regulatory boundary.

Nonsense. RKBA types readily admit that the Second Amendment allows for a "well regulated militia," while a lot of liberals still steadfastly refuse to admit that the Second Amendment is an individual right rather than a "collective" right ("collective" gun rights, of course, being a theory liberals invented out of thin air ~60 years ago). Debating gun rights with people like you reminds one of the countries in the Middle East that make demands of Israel while refusing to acknowledge Israel's basic right to exist.

In any event, Crosby's #3046 is a good explanation of where the lines should be drawn. Despite Sam's bloviating, the Second Amendment was never understood to guarantee every American the right to privately possess the latest and greatest military-grade weaponry.

Neither agreeing nor disagreeing with this formulation, I'll simply point out that this formulation completely undermines the plain text and stated intentions of the writers of the Constitution. If citizens are explicitly denied military grade weapons than no argument can be made that the right to bear arms is functional to a well formed militia.

Total nonsense. The Second Amendment was intended to help Americans resist a tyrannical government, with a tyrannical U.S. government being the main fear. Within that context, there would never be a scenario in which American citizens had the need to privately possess let alone deploy "suitcase nukes" or ICBMs or anything of the like. The whole argument is laughable.

***

It's not meant to be persuasive; it's just some background on the Second Amendment and its extremely limited case law.

The reason there's limited case law is because there was basically zero debate about the Second Amendment from 1790 until well into the 20th century, when some liberals started claiming that everyone had been reading the 2A wrong for the country's first 150 years.

when some liberals started claiming that everyone had been reading the 2A wrong for the country's first 150 years.

Probably had nothing to do with the advent of massive advances in gun technology.

Probably had nothing to do with the advent of massive advances in gun technology.

Sheer coincidence. Isn't that the darndest thing?

Crosby's #3046 is a good explanation of where the lines should be drawn.

Crosby wrote:

If the weapon is appropriate for hunting or self-defense, it is legitimate to own as an individual. If the weapon serves no purpose other than to kill a group of people quickly, then it's reasonable to limit public use of such weapons to the military.

Common ground. Assault rifles serve no purpose other than to kill a group of people quickly — thus its name, assault rifle. Given what you and Crosby wrote, you'd be comfortable with an assault rifle ban?

I personally have no problem with hand guns. Own one, own a thousand, I don't care. The invention of fully automatics, assault rifles, etc., in the latter half of the 20th century has rightly changed how we look at the 2nd Amendment.

Total nonsense. The Second Amendment was intended to help Americans resist a tyrannical government, with a tyrannical U.S. government being the main fear. Within that context, there would never be a scenario in which American citizens had the need to privately possess let alone deploy "suitcase nukes" or ICBMs or anything of the like. The whole argument is laughable.

What is laughable is the idea that the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct because it is the only thing standing between the US citizenry and a tyrannical US government, while at the same time arguing that the US citizenry's rights under the 2nd Amendment ends exactly at the point where the "arms" they may keep and bear creep into military grade weaponry.

"The RKBA is the only thing between us and tyranny, but the RKBA doesn't allow anyone to keep or bear arms that might prevent a tyrannical force from marching through unsullied and unharried by any of the citizens."

If you think your semi-repeating deer rifle that happens to be cast in an aggressive mold with a "military looking" stock is going to prevent tyranny if the guys with the Predators decide they want to tyranize your ass, you're insane.

So more properly it is a monetary/political mess primarily. There are some fiscal elements, but that is very secondary to the root issues.

You can't really explain Greece as a monetary policy issue only. Similarly, you can't really explain Italy in the same way as you explain Spain.

In addition, you can't explain the whole Euro project without acknowledging the messed up history. There was a weird desire from European elites to bind the whole continent together to both compete with the US and to prevent further wars. But there was an insistence on avoiding long-term transfer payments.

There was a weird desire from European elites to bind the whole continent together to both compete with the US and to prevent further wars. But there was an insistence on avoiding long-term transfer payments.

I don't see anything weird about a desire to compete economically and prevent war, actually. Sounds pretty positive to me, even if it's desired by elites. But yes, the issue with the euro is they installed it half-way.

Probably had nothing to do with the advent of massive advances in gun technology.

I only went to public schools. I guess I missed the part in history class where millions of Americans had cannons mounted on their front porches in the years before the liberals tried to write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.

***

If you think your semi-repeating deer rifle that happens to be cast in an aggressive mold with a "military looking" stock is going to prevent tyranny if the guys with the Predators decide they want to tyranize your ass, you're insane.

Geez, and right-wingers are derided as "black helicopter" types?

Eurodoom is weird because basically nobody seems to really know what it's about (including Euro policy makers), and people like to use whatever happens as justification for action or inaction here.

Nobody knows what it's about? Greece and Spain were spending far, far more money than their countries' revenue could support, and they (predictably) ran out of people willing to loan them easy money. No mystery there.

***

The Great Depression lasted more than a decade and, as events proved, was cyclical rather than structural. Since the basic economic issues facing us are the same that existed back then (with a somewhat more interventionist goverrnment taking off the hard edge), why wouldn't the same. be true now?

The Great Depression ended because 25,000,000 Americans suddenly were sent off to war or found jobs in defense-related industries at home. Wars are a great cure for double-digit unemployment.

The current downturn is structural for a lot of reasons, including the end of easy credit and the lack of WWII-era low-skilled jobs that pay a living wage. Five years into the downturn, over 10 percent of the U.S. workforce remains idle, underemployment is at ~25 percent, and something like half of recent college graduates can't find meaningful full-time work. Other than a war, or maybe some type of energy breakthrough, what's suddenly going to happen that will make all of these workers — workers for whom the American labor market seems to have little or no use — not only employable, but employable at a living wage?

I don't see anything weird about a desire to compete economically and prevent war, actually. Sounds pretty positive to me, even if it's desired by elites.

Since Napoleon, the history of Europe has been dominated by nationalism. Different countries and cultures sought to dominate others. The Euro project was designed as a pan-Nationalist solution to nationalism, but they kept the real power to just a couple of countries. Instead of France or Germany conquering Greece and Spain with force of arms, they did it by currency.

It's truly a weird idea.

Edit:

Nobody knows what it's about? Greece and Spain were spending far, far more money than their countries' revenue could support, and they (predictably) ran out of people willing to loan them easy money. No mystery there.

Again, Spain had a primary budget surplus from like 2004-2007. You can explain Greece by tax evasion and corruption, but you can't explain Spain in the same way.

Other than a war, or maybe some type of energy breakthrough, what's suddenly going to happen that will make all of these workers — workers for whom the American labor market seems to have little or no use — not only employable, but employable at a living wage?

So you're arguing for more expansive stimulus?

Since Napoleon, the history of Europe has been dominated by nationalism. Different countries and cultures sought to dominate others.

I don't know how to do that "crossed out" thing, but it there is nothing uniquely European about this. Since the concept of the nation-state was invented, the history of the world has been dominated by nationalism. Different countries and cultures sought to dominate others. It's your basic human condition.

Instead of France or Germany conquering Greece and Spain with force of arms, they did it by currency.

Yes, modernity has seen more economic domination than outright military conquest. I fail to see how this is a bad thing, and I fail to see what is "weird" about it.

I guess I missed the part in history class where millions of Americans had cannons mounted on their front porches in the years before the liberals tried to write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.

Did you miss the part where a single person can now unload literally hundreds of rounds of ammo with deadly accuracy in a single minute? Again, given what you and Crosby wrote, would you be comfortable with an assault rifle ban?

Or, as #3040 asked, Q: Granted that we all agree both "no restrictions whatsoever" and "there is no right to any guns" are incorrect positions claimed by no one, where in the middle do you yourself draw the line? This is not an unreasonable question.

Since the concept of the nation-state was invented, the history of the world has been dominated by nationalism. Different countries and cultures sought to dominate others. It's your basic human condition.

Benedict Anderson, in Imagined Communities disagrees-- in fact, he calls nationalism an ideology that derives its validity from this act of projecting it back onto the whole of history.

===

Or, as #3040 asked, Q: Granted that we all agree both "no restrictions whatsoever" and "there is no right to any guns" are incorrect positions claimed by no one, where in the middle do you yourself draw the line? This is not an unreasonable question.

I find it amusing that people are still expecting Joe to answer this question, when he has repeatedly made clear that he does not intend to engage this discussion with a shred of intellectual honesty.

Oh, sure. But it's been my experience that no other BBTF poster needs the last word more than Joe*, so even if he never answers the question, I know he'll keep coming back and seeing it.

*except maybe Andy, but the poor guy's not here to defend himself. (sad face)

Did you miss the part where a single person can now unload literally hundreds of rounds of ammo with deadly accuracy in a single minute? Again, given what you and Crosby wrote, would you be comfortable with an assault rifle ban?

How are you defining "assault rifle"? My understanding is that the Aurora shooter used an AR-15, which, contrary to widespread media error, isn't an assault rifle. The 100-round clip seems like a bigger issue than the gun.

Oh, sure. But it's been my experience that no other BBTF poster needs the last word more than Joe*, so even if he never answers the question, I know he'll keep coming back and seeing it.

Gee, I've only been commenting here for about 18 months. I didn't realize I had left such an impression.

So you're arguing for more expansive stimulus?

I might, if we had anything to show for the first one. But I see no reason keep throwing money down the hole. A WPA-style stimulus would have been far better and smarter than Obama's trillion-dollar handout to unions and irresponsible state governments.

Benedict Anderson, in Imagined Communities disagrees-- in fact, he calls nationalism an ideology that derives its validity from this act of projecting it back onto the whole of history.

I have not read that, but my immediate reaction, with all due respect to Benedict Anderson, is that his notion is silly. Nation-states evolved from city-states and empires and kingdoms and all sorts of earlier forms, but all were basically organized around the desire for "us" to fear, detest, and dominate "them" if at all possible. So it was all the way back to the savannah. This is anything but a modern invention. Only a too-narrow focus on the specific term "nationalism" fails to acknowledge this fundamental.

I have not read that, but my immediate reaction, with all due respect to Benedict Anderson, is that his notion is silly. Nation-states evolved from city-states and empires and kingdoms and all sorts of earlier forms, but all were basically organized around the desire for "us" to fear, detest, and dominate "them" if at all possible. So it was all the way back to the savannah. This is anything but a modern invention. Only a too-narrow focus on the specific term "nationalism" fails to acknowledge this fundamental.

I think you're giving the term a false universalism-- which is, again, part of Anderson's argument about its historical life. You're robbing it of the particular meanings it has taken on by applying it to all bonds of human unity. Anderson's point is that the ideology of the nation as the grounds for bonds between people has displaced competing ideologies-- family, class, ethnicity, religion, tribe, ect-- as a structuring explanatory framework for understanding political relationships.

Edit: part of Anderson's argument is tied to the rise of print culture and literacy, which provided a uniformity to language and helped to offset the ties to local communities more grounded in the bonds formed by common dialect.

I think you're giving the term a false universalism-- which is, again, part of Anderson's argument about its historical life. You're robbing it of the particular meanings it has taken on by applying it to all bonds of human unity. Anderson's point is that the ideology of the nation as the grounds for bonds between people has displaced competing ideologies-- family, class, religion, tribe, ect-- as a structuring explanatory framework for understanding political relationships.

Well, I think there's nothing false about the universalism of the "us vs. them" dynamic in the warlike nationalism introduced by tshipman in #3073. Yes, in nationalism, the nation overrides more localized units of loyalty. I'm not finding this to be a piercing insight.

Neither agreeing nor disagreeing with this formulation, I'll simply point out that this formulation completely undermines the plain text and stated intentions of the writers of the Constitution. If citizens are explicitly denied military grade weapons than no argument can be made that the right to bear arms is functional to a well formed militia.

I have to disagree.

There has always been a difference between a military and a militia. Nobody reasonably expects or ever expected a militia to go toe-to-toe with the full armed might of a sovereign nation. The main purpose of a militia is to handle minor threats that can be handled locally and to delay until the military arrives if the threats are too large.

It is perfectly in line with the plain text of the Second Amendment to allow people to bear arms without bearing military-grade arms; it is quite a stretch to insist that the literal text unquestionably indicates that "arms" means "every weapon in existence today and all weapons invented in the future." Nor is it entirely clear if the Second Amendment exists primarily to protect the States against the potential tyranny of the federal government (Congress passed the Amendment with a capital-s "State") or to protect the nation itself from threats internal and external (the ratified lowercase-s "state"), or indeed if this was an intended, deliberate distinction.

As for the intent of the founders, there is little question that they were not of one mind on the issue. What we do know is that self-defense was a critical right in our nation's early years: we didn't have quasi-armed forces in the form of local police as we do today. We also know that part of the right to bear arms comes, at least in part, from the sense that a government need always be a little nervous about going too far (as the British did) in abusing its citizens, and that fear cannot exist without an armed citizenry.

Without approaching the question of whether we need to interpret the Constitution in 2012 with the knowledge available only to the founders, both the plain text of the Second Amendment and a sense of history would lead us to believe that there is certainly SOME right to gun ownership, but neither lend full support for the idea that the founding fathers intended for the militia to be capable of overthrowing a determined government. It is likely that at least some of them wanted the people to be able to create enough of a threat that a government would need overwhelming support in order to be able to put down a motivated rebellion, which itself is a check on abuse of power.

I do believe that handguns, shotguns, and rifles create such a threat. Get a hundred motivated people with even handguns that simply won't accept an oppressive law and you'll either have to let them ignore it or do something pretty serious. If you choose the latter, you're going to be under serious scrutiny and better be well justified in your use of force.

Unless those hundred people happen to be unpopular religious nuts or racists. Then most people will brush off the government abuses as either unimportant or justified in teaching those backwards folks a lesson.

How are you defining "assault rifle"?

I think what's important is how you define "assault rifle." All of us in this particular tangent has acknowledge that there be some sort of regulation on personal weapons ownership. You've mocked liberals for where they draw the line. Where's your line? If you agree with Crosby — "If the weapon serves no purpose other than to kill a group of people quickly, then it's reasonable to limit public use of such weapons to the military" — then what is that line where you would begin limiting public use?

Well, I think there's nothing false about the universalism of the "us vs. them" dynamic in the warlike nationalism introduced by tshipman in #3073. Yes, in nationalism, the nation overrides more localized units of loyalty. I'm not finding this to be a piercing insight.

OK, I mean, it's a well-regarded argument, but feel free to waive it away. The point is that the specific project tshipman was referring to is just that-- a specific project, animated by a specific ideology that had to justify itself. Reducing it to "people get into groups to try to dominate one another" doesn't tell you anything useful about contemporary Europe, about how the specific national bonds in Europe formed, about their tenacity and durability, the ideas motivating people to imagine themselves bonded to another group of distant people, ect. I'm not sure why those specifics would seem unimportant to you, but to each their own. The point about print culture seems particularly salient-- European nationalism was largely a post-Gutenberg development, and we're in the midst of another drastic shift in the dominant mode of communication, one invested with a lot of utopian political hopes (global village and all that).

Reducing it to "people get into groups to try to dominate one another" doesn't tell you anything useful about contemporary Europe

It's an inescapably foundational fact regarding contemporary Europe, and therefore I'd say it's useful to bear it in mind. I was reacting to tshipman's characterization in #3073 of Europe and its history as being "weird," by which I assume he means "exceptional." Everyplace has a unique history, but one should be cautious about too readily perceiving exceptionalism.

The Great Depression ended because 25,000,000 Americans suddenly were sent off to war or found jobs in defense-related industries at home

Or as economists call it, "massive counter-cyclical government spending programs."

I think what's important is how you define "assault rifle."

I define an assault rifle as an assault rifle. The media and liberals seem to call any scary-looking long gun an "assault rifle," but it's incorrect and dishonest. The guy in Aurora did not have an assault rifle. He had a semi-automatic AR-15-style gun with a 100-round magazine. The latter is much more the issue than the former (although, in this particular case, the Aurora shooter's AR-15 apparently jammed and it's unclear how many shots he fired with it).

All of us in this particular tangent has acknowledge that there be some sort of regulation on personal weapons ownership. You've mocked liberals for where they draw the line. Where's your line? If you agree with Crosby — "If the weapon serves no purpose other than to kill a group of people quickly, then it's reasonable to limit public use of such weapons to the military" — then what is that line where you would begin limiting public use?

As I said above, I mostly agree with Crosby. I'd be happy to debate 100-round magazines vs. 20-round magazines, but I don't buy into the idea that one more law would have changed much in Aurora. When deranged people are hellbent on wreaking havoc, they wreak havoc.

I was reacting to tshipman's characterization in #3073 of Europe and its history as being "weird," by which I assume he means "exceptional." Everyplace has a unique history, but one should be cautious about too readily perceiving exceptionalism.

Well, this is the quote:

The Euro project was designed as a pan-Nationalist solution to nationalism, but they kept the real power to just a couple of countries. Instead of France or Germany conquering Greece and Spain with force of arms, they did it by currency.

It's truly a weird idea.

Other countries struggle to adapt to a nationalistic worldview precisely because their identities are dominated by allegiances that are far more local and provincial. It comes "natural" to Europeans, precisely because the nationalist ideology has been such an animating force in Europe. I'm taking off for the afternoon, and I don't want to chew up any more space here on this tangent, so I'll just link to a parsed version of his definition in case you're interested.

You mean, the Great Depression didn't end because income and capital gains tax rates were reduced on the "job creators"?

Nope. It also didn't end because food stamps are "stimulus."

As I said above, I mostly agree with Crosby. I'd be happy to debate 100-round magazines vs. 20-round magazines, but I don't buy into the idea that one more law would have changed much in Aurora. When deranged people are hellbent on wreaking havoc, they wreak havoc.

This is where you lose touch with reality. You seem to acknowledge that if Holmes had had access to a true automatic repeater he would have killed more people. As such, you must acknowledge that the ban on full automatic repeaters* saved lives. "One more law" resulted in fewer dead moviegoers. And it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that moving that law a half step forward, to ban large bin clips, would have saved EVEN MORE lives. But to do that would require you question your assumptions, open yourself up to intellectually honest debate, and *gasp* possibly even agree with "liberals" to some extent. To date you consistently choose avoidance of cognitive dissonance over basic reasoning.

It is true that deranged people hellbent on wreaking havoc will wreak havoc, but I guarantee you that had Holmes been unable to acquire the near military grade weaponry he bought and had to wreak havoc with knives, fewer families would be burying innocent victims this week.

Other countries struggle to adapt to a nationalistic worldview precisely because their identities are dominated by allegiances that are far more local and provincial. It comes "natural" to Europeans, precisely because the nationalist ideology has been such an animating force in Europe.

Fine, and I might be persuaded at some point, but right now I'm not persuaded that nationalism is all that much more natural to Europeans than it is and has been to, say, Americans, or Chinese, or Indians, or Brazilians, or Japanese, or Australians, or many others. This nation-state thing kind of caught on all over the place.

Of course, there are many things particular to Europeans and their history and culture, just as there are for everyone everywhere else. But I don't find the notion of bigger, more powerful nations in Europe seeking and achieving economic dominance over smaller, less powerful ones to be all that "weird" a phenomenon. What's the US and its economic relationship with Mexico and the rest of Latin America been?

If anything, I see the euro, and the larger European Union, to be attempts by the Europeans to begin to move beyond the nation-state paradigm. What's weird to me isn't French/German hegemony over Greece/Spain, what's weird to me is French/German cooperation. That's the historical outlier, by a wide margin.

Fine, and I might be persuaded at some point, but right now I'm not persuaded that nationalism is all that much more natural to Europeans than it is and has been to, say, Americans, or Chinese

Not sure I buy that. The idea of nation-states outside of Europe seems at a casual glance to map pretty well to "places that were colonized by Europe."

The idea of nation-states outside of Europe seems at a casual glance to map pretty well to "places that were colonized by Europe."

Given that every continent outside of Europe except Antarctica was colonized by Europe, I don't find that especially surprising.

Fine, and I might be persuaded at some point, but right now I'm not persuaded that nationalism is all that much more natural to Europeans than it is and has been to, say, Americans, or Chinese, or Indians, or Brazilians, or Japanese, or Australians, or many others. This nation-state thing kind of caught on all over the place.

The nations in Europe each have a dominant cultural and ethnic type. This is different from most of the rest of the world. The reason why I said, "since Napoleon" is that Napoleon was the first ruler to use the idea of nationalism to mobilize an army. European nationalism is very much different from Genghis Khan, Suleiman, or Caesar Augustus. If Nationalism grew naturally out of city-states, we would have seen it earlier.

Nationalism is more or less foreign to Chinese history, for example, until Sun Yat-Sen, who was hugely influenced by Western thought.

My argument wasn't that European history was exceptional (although it is), but that the idea of pan-Nationalism in which two countries retain significant control over other countries would ever work. That idea is weird.

(thanks to formerly db for the smart continuation of the argument)

This is where you lose touch with reality. You seem to acknowledge that if Holmes had had access to a true automatic repeater he would have killed more people. As such, you must acknowledge that the ban on full automatic repeaters* saved lives.

It's likely, but it's not that clear-cut.

He did after all have access to fully automatic weapons. It's illegal to kit them into fully automatic, but not that _that_ hard to obtain and if he really wanted a fully automatic weapon. Plus, they weren't really banned and he could have legally purchased one of the 200,000 or so registered automatics that are compliant with FOPA.

The other issue is that automatic weapons aren't all that precise, even for those that are fully trained in using them. You reference the A-Team above but that's not really a factual representation of automatic weapons. The Marines didn't move from fully automatic to three-round bursts because they wanted to reduce killing potential.

There's also the far greater risk of jamming.

This is where you lose touch with reality. You seem to acknowledge that if Holmes had had access to a true automatic repeater he would have killed more people. As such, you must acknowledge that the ban on full automatic repeaters* saved lives. "One more law" resulted in fewer dead moviegoers.

The law banning possession of automatic weapons had been on the books since 1934. "One more law" didn't do diddly poo in Aurora.

And it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that moving that law a half step forward, to ban large bin clips, would have saved EVEN MORE lives. But to do that would require you question your assumptions, open yourself up to intellectually honest debate, and *gasp* possibly even agree with "liberals" to some extent. To date you consistently choose avoidance of cognitive dissonance over basic reasoning.

Are you really this obtuse? [rhetorical question]

I specifically said, in the quote to which you replied, that "I'd be happy to debate 100-round magazines vs. 20-round magazines."

It is true that deranged people hellbent on wreaking havoc will wreak havoc, but I guarantee you that had Holmes been unable to acquire the near military grade weaponry he bought and had to wreak havoc with knives, fewer families would be burying innocent victims this week.

You can't "guarantee" any such thing. For all you know, this guy would have blown up the whole complex. We know he was dabbling with explosives.

I specifically said, exactly one sentence before the sentence to which you just replied, that "I'd be happy to debate 100-round magazines vs. 20-round magazines."

Okay, since I'm more or less over the nationalism argument:

I think that 100 round magazines should be banned. Magazines for cash programs should be launched in major cities, and ammo should be restricted in its sale. I think that a lot of the focus on gun control is sort of unlikely to be productive, and more focus should be placed on ammunition control.

I would actually like to keep ammo to around 12 shot clips, really. I don't understand the arguments for why larger magazines are necessary.

I don't understand the arguments for why larger magazines are necessary.

The argument that I've heard is that John Homeowner, defending himself from an armed intruder, won't have to reload if he's got a 100-round clip. While reloading, one is vulnerable.

How likely John Homeowner, defending himself from an armed intruder, is going to need to fire 100 rounds wasn't specified.