Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, December 02, 2012

OTP December 2012 - Pushing G.O.P. to Negotiate, Obama Ends Giving In

Mr. Obama, scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a different kind of negotiator in the past week or two, sticking to the liberal line and frustrating Republicans on the other side of the bargaining table.

Bitter Mouse Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:15 PM | 6172 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 47 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 >  Last ›
   4601. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:04 AM (#4331241)
The point isn't whether it is useful (statistically speaking, you're better off without the gun entirely), but whether or not it was banned. You claimed that DC/Chicago banned all guns ("two of America's biggest cities had flat gun bans for decades"). That wasn't true. Handguns were banned. Other guns had storage requirements designed to prevent suicides.

Your claim was not valid, your arguments were ########, and your ignorance on the law remains breathtaking.

The point isn't whether the guns were useful? How absurd. That's typical leftist flimflammery, along the lines of Chicago requiring that gun-permit applicants spend time at a gun range but then banning gun ranges.* What's the point of owning a non-functional firearm, or a firearm that takes so long to become functional that it's essentially useless?


(* Which, thankfully, was tossed as quickly as it was passed.)
   4602. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:10 AM (#4331244)
Apologies if this New Yorker essay has already been posted or quoted 2, or 4, or 36 pages ago:

Five thousand seven hundred and forty children and teens died from gunfire in the United States, just in 2008 and 2009... The overwhelming majority of those children would have been saved with effective gun control. We know that this is so, because, in societies that have effective gun control, children rarely, rarely, rarely die of gunshots.

...Gun control works on gun violence as surely as antibiotics do on bacterial infections. In Scotland, after Dunblane, in Australia, after Tasmania, in Canada, after the Montreal massacre—in each case the necessary laws were passed to make gun-owning hard, and in each case… well, you will note the absence of massacre-condolence speeches made by the Prime Ministers of Canada and Australia, in comparison with our own President.

...the central insight of the modern study of criminal violence is that all crime—even the horrific violent crimes of assault and rape—is at some level opportunistic. Building a low annoying wall against them is almost as effective as building a high impenetrable one. This is the key concept of Franklin Zimring’s amazing work on crime in New York; everyone said that, given the social pressures, the slum pathologies, the profits to be made in drug dealing, the ascending levels of despair, that there was no hope of changing the ever-growing cycle of violence. The right wing insisted that this generation of predators would give way to a new generation of super-predators.

What the New York Police Department found out, through empirical experience and better organization, was that making crime even a little bit harder made it much, much rarer. This is undeniably true of property crime, and common sense and evidence tells you that this is also true even of crimes committed by crazy people (to use the plain English the subject deserves). Those who hold themselves together enough to be capable of killing anyone are subject to the same rules of opportunity as sane people. Even madmen need opportunities to display their madness, and behave in different ways depending on the possibilities at hand. Demand an extraordinary degree of determination and organization from someone intent on committing a violent act, and the odds that the violent act will take place are radically reduced, in many cases to zero.

...Even within this gun-crazy country, states with strong gun laws have fewer gun murders (and suicides and accidental killings) than states without them. ...the inflated figure of guns used in self-defense every year, running even to a million or two million, is a pure fantasy, even though it’s still cited by pro-gun enthusiasts. Those hundreds of thousands intruders shot by gun owners left no records in emergency wards or morgues; indeed, left no evidentiary trace behind. This is because they did not exist.

...One would have to believe that Americans are somehow uniquely evil or depraved to think that the same forces that work on the rest of the planet won’t work here. It’s always hard to summon up political will for change, no matter how beneficial the change may obviously be. Summoning the political will to make automobiles safe was difficult; so was summoning the political will to limit and then effectively ban cigarettes from public places. At some point, we will become a gun-safe, and then a gun-sane, and finally a gun-free society.

...Some violence will always go on. What gun control is good at is controlling guns. Gun control will eliminate gun massacres in America as surely as antibiotics eliminate bacterial infections. As I wrote last week, those who oppose it have made a moral choice: that they would rather have gun massacres of children continue rather than surrender whatever idea of freedom or pleasure they find wrapped up in owning guns or seeing guns owned—just as the faith healers would rather watch the children die than accept the reality of scientific medicine.
   4603. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:18 AM (#4331250)
What gun control is good at is controlling guns. ...

Remember before Heller and McDonald, when D.C. and Chicago were the two safest cities in America? Ah, yes, those were the good old days.
   4604. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:23 AM (#4331251)
If if two cities, or ten cities, had flat gun bans (which does not in fact seem to be true) how on earth is the actions of some cities equal to "all liberals".

Personally I don't like guns, but I don't spend my time plotting overthrowing the second amendment or anything. I already wrote (pages ago) what I think should be done. But heck let's just create some liberal boogeymen and argue with them.

The whole argument is just silly. But then all slippery slope arguments are silly. Measures should be supported or opposed based on what is in them.

Pretending if bans on magazines sizes larger than 20 are enacted then soon all guns will be banned is ridiculous. And if you argue that well some people think that then you are arguing those people are morons. And yes there are morons and they believe stupid things, but so what let's talk about issues.

And Joe since we are talking gun rights you never answered me regarding Australia. If Australia is not a good match for the US, then what country possibly could be? It is as similar a nation to the US as there is and plenty big enough to be a good test case for what a country can do about guns if there is the political will.
   4605. Mefisto Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:23 AM (#4331252)
Not just no suits against states for violating federal constitutional rights but almost no suits against the federal government for doing so.


There were, of course, no suits against the states for violating the Bill of Rights until after the Civil War, because under Barron v. Baltimore the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states. In fact, no state laws were struck down under the Bill of Rights until 1932.

Prior to the Civil War, just twice were federal statutes struck down as unconstitutional: once in Marbury v Madison, and once in Dred Scott.
   4606. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:41 AM (#4331261)
And Joe since we are talking gun rights you never answered me regarding Australia. If Australia is not a good match for the US, then what country possibly could be? It is as similar a nation to the US as there is and plenty big enough to be a good test case for what a country can do about guns if there is the political will.

Australia is "as similar a nation to the U.S. as there is"? The U.S. has over 15 times more people than Australia, the U.S. is far more diverse than Australia, the U.S. has substantially greater problems with gangs and drugs, the U.S.'s illegitimacy rate is almost double Australia's, the two countries' cultures are different, the geography is different, the weather is different, the population densities are different, etc., etc.

All of that aside, what was the baseline? Was Australia having 20 mass shootings per year which dropped to zero after it passed some new gun laws, or did the country move to reduce guns after a one-off incident that was statistically unlikely in the first place?
   4607. Dale Sams Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:41 AM (#4331262)
In Scotland, after Dunblane


How many massacres were there before Dunblane?
   4608. Greg K Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:45 AM (#4331267)
Australia is "as similar a nation to the U.S. as there is"? The U.S. has over 15 times more people than Australia, the U.S. is far more diverse than Australia, the U.S. has substantially greater problems with gangs and drugs, the two countries' cultures are different, the geography is different, the weather is different, the population densities are different, etc.

This isn't really addressing his question. Let's assume Australia sucks as a comparison. Is there a country that's better? Or is there no nation that's usefully comparable to America?

EDIT: In a general sense I'd assume Canada would be the obvious comparable nation for America in most cases, though Australia has certain elements that match up as well. To think about it another way...what's the rankings of the top five comparable nations to the US. Not to be too philosophical about it, but SOMEONE has to be the most comparable.
   4609. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:48 AM (#4331269)
I'm still hoping you'll answer this question: "Actually, there is a constitutional right to own firearms — just not every type of firearm." Where should the line be drawn?

As a jumping-off point, I'd suggest any firearm that can be carried on one's person, the primary utility of which is self-defense or hunting.
   4610. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:50 AM (#4331272)
And Joe since we are talking gun rights you never answered me regarding Australia.

Australia is "as similar a nation to the U.S. as there is"?
This line of questioning is a trap. JoeK and Ray and others won't admit that any other country on Earth is a relevant comparison, because pretty much every large-body study on gun control is going to work against their argument.

What I still want to know is this: If there is a constitutional right to own firearms, but not every type of firearm, then where is the line we draw to separate the legal from illegal firearms? This is the question I want to answered by JoeK and the NRA types.
   4611. Dale Sams Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:51 AM (#4331273)
SOMEONE has to be the most comparable.


Russia?
   4612. Dale Sams Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:54 AM (#4331276)
Here's a crazy idea: outlaw everything but rifles. And obviously from that, outlaw open carry.

That means you can keep your home defense and your hunting and still have decent firepower when THEY come for you.

edit: Or how bout just outlaw handguns.
   4613. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:55 AM (#4331277)
I'd suggest any firearm that can be carried on one's person, the primary utility of which is self-defense or hunting.
"Self-defense." Grenades and rocket launchers can be carried on one's person, and when worn openly probably serve as a strong deterrent. Are rocket launchers okay?
   4614. Greg K Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:01 AM (#4331281)
Russia?

As a comparison between Russian and American cultures I was going to suggest taking David Mitchell's take on Russian political culture and substituting "Russia" with "America" for ironic effect. But in retrospect I suppose some wouldn't see that much irony in it.

For the record, if Australian culture isn't a useful match to American culture I can't imagine Russian culture is. Maybe I'm judging too harshly the Russians I know, and my knowledge of Russian culture from reading...but similarities don't seem to abound, at least superficially.
   4615. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:03 AM (#4331285)
This isn't really addressing his question. Let's assume Australia sucks as a comparison. Is there a country that's better? Or is there no nation that's usefully comparable to America?

Canada is probably better, but even Canada is lousy, given the huge difference in population, Canada's lower starting baselines re: crime, drugs, and gangs, substantial differences in ideology and culture*, etc.


(* Still with the monarchy, Canada? Seriously?)
   4616. Lassus Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:04 AM (#4331286)
Grenades and rocket launchers can be carried on one's person

I can't find a clip to link to, but that didn't work out too well for Leonard Smalls.
   4617. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:04 AM (#4331287)
I'd suggest any firearm that can be carried on one's person, the primary utility of which is self-defense or hunting.


I'd prefer something I could mount to the hood of my car, like a flame thrower or an M2 machine gun.
   4618. Greg K Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:06 AM (#4331288)
(* Still with the monarchy, Canada? Seriously?)

Hey! I'm all for a nice heated debate on trivial matters like the economy and mass killings. But I'll not stand idly by while the authority of Our Great Lady is impugned.

Well...I will stand idly by. But I'll feel bad about doing so.
   4619. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:09 AM (#4331290)
I'd suggest any firearm that can be carried on one's person, the primary utility of which is self-defense or hunting.
"Self-defense." Grenades and rocket launchers can be carried on one's person, and when worn openly probably serve as a strong deterrent. Are rocket launchers okay?

Grenades and rocket launchers are now considered "firearms," and their primary utility is self-defense or hunting?
   4620. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:12 AM (#4331292)
Grenades and rocket launchers can be carried on one's person

I can't find a clip to link to, but that didn't work out too well for Leonard Smalls.


Jiminy Christmas, I was just talking about Tex Cobb yesterday with a friend. For those of y'all who aren't familiar with his non-Hollywood efforts, Cobb took such an incredibly one-sided thrashing from heavyweight champion Larry Holmes during their 1982 match that commentator Howard Cosell publicly quit announcing boxing bouts out of disgust.

When Cobb was told of Cosell's self-imposed retirement from the sport, he replied, "If I eliminate heart disease, if I walk on water, if I come up with a cure for crippled kids, I can't image a greater gift to mankind. That is my greatest accomplishment."
   4621. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:16 AM (#4331294)
Grenades and rocket launchers are now considered "firearms," and their primary utility is self-defense or hunting?
Hey, I have that same skepticism towards assault rifles. It's not a self-defense rifle, after all. I mean, the purpose of the weapon is right there in the name, "assault." Yet the argument for them seems to be self-defense, so that's why I feel the need to ask. If the definition of self-defense is expansive enough to include something that can lay down suppression fire across a wide area, why not a grenade? Why not a rocket launcher?

I think I'm going to be wanting a less vague definition than "carried on one's person" and being useful for "self-defense or hunting."
   4622. Dale Sams Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:26 AM (#4331297)
But in retrospect I suppose some wouldn't see that much irony in it.


"Oh, he used to torture people in the KGB, what a guy."

I think it's funny when you see this picture of Bush I..he looks sinister, whereas he normally looks avuncular.
   4623. Greg K Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:28 AM (#4331298)
Hey, I have that same skepticism towards assault rifles. It's not a self-defense rifle, after all. I mean, the purpose of the weapon is right there in the name, "assault." Yet the argument for them seems to be self-defense, so that's why I feel the need to ask. If the definition of self-defense is expansive enough to include something that can lay down suppression fire across a wide area, why not a grenade? Why not a rocket launcher?

I'd assume there's a law of diminishing returns. A grenade launcher can be effective self-defence. How much more effective than an M16? And how much more effective is an M16 to a hand-gun as an instrument of self-defence?

If you say, "you can have a hand-gun, but not an assault rifle" are you limiting the ability to exercise self-defence? Presumably this is why a grenade launcher is out. Sure, you can use a grenade launcher for self-defence, but a hand gun is likely just as effective in 99.99% of cases and so is not worth the risk of its potential for mass destruction.
   4624. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:29 AM (#4331299)
#4613 and #4621 are perfect examples of why it's a fool's errand to debate gun rights with liberals.

Hey, I have that same skepticism towards assault rifles. It's not a self-defense rifle, after all. I mean, the purpose of the weapon is right there in the name, "assault." Yet the argument for them seems to be self-defense, so that's why I feel the need to ask. If the definition of self-defense is expansive enough to include something that can lay down suppression fire across a wide area, why not a grenade? Why not a rocket launcher?

Since private ownership of assault rifles is limited to those manufactured before 1986 and is otherwise tightly controlled, most of the above is moot. But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of your little fear campaign.

I think I'm going to be wanting a less vague definition than "carried on one's person" and being useful for "self-defense or hunting."

It was only "vague" for people who don't know the definition of "firearm" and who believe grenades and rocket launchers are primarily used for self-defense or hunting.
   4625. Dale Sams Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:31 AM (#4331302)
your fear campaign.


Greg seems more of a Suicidal Tendencies guy.
   4626. tshipman Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:35 AM (#4331305)
Since private ownership of assault rifles is limited to those manufactured before 1986 and is otherwise tightly controlled, most of the above is moot. But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of your fear campaign.


The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the floor for a vote.


Joe is really bad at knowing things about gun laws.

1. Original understanding of 2nd Amendment
2. Gun bans enacted in US cities
3. FAWB
4. STAY TUNED!!!!
   4627. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:39 AM (#4331309)
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the floor for a vote.
Joe is really bad at knowing things about gun laws.

1. Original understanding of 2nd Amendment
2. Gun bans enacted in US cities
3. FAWB
4. STAY TUNED!!!!

LOL. Shipman thinks "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are synonyms.
   4628. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:54 AM (#4331314)
#4613 and #4621 are perfect examples of why it's a fool's errand to debate gun rights with liberals.
Why? I'm letting you define all the terms of the discussion, and even with that you still won't narrow it down to anything beyond something portable that you can use to hunt with or for "self-defense."

Shipman thinks "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are synonyms.
Then define them for us.
   4629. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:55 AM (#4331316)
.
   4630. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:05 AM (#4331320)
Why? I'm letting you define all the terms of the discussion, and even with that you still won't narrow it down to anything beyond something portable that you can use to hunt with or for "self-defense."

No, I gave a very simple answer:

"I'd suggest any firearm that can be carried on one's person, the primary utility of which is self-defense or hunting."

... and you immediately jumped to "grenades and rocket launchers," despite neither of them being "firearms" and neither of them primarily being used for self-defense or hunting.

Since my working definition has no loopholes that would allow machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, or suitcase nukes, how much narrower does my definition need to be?

Then define them for us.

"Assault rifles" are automatic weapons. The definition of "assault weapon" is more of an "eyes of the beholder" thing in the gun debate, but the two aren't synonyms, and Shipman's attempted "gotcha" (#4626) was entirely devoid of the "gotcha" part.
   4631. tshipman Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:05 AM (#4331323)
LOL. Shipman thinks "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are synonyms.


Nope. But civilians can purchase semi-automatic assault rifles. Full auto is illegal (except in Kansas, oddly).

   4632. McCoy Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:09 AM (#4331325)
If you need anything more than a dinky little revolver to defend yourself then you are better off running away and probably having anything more than that dinky little revolver would pose a danger to the public at large.
   4633. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:12 AM (#4331326)
... and you immediately jumped to "grenades and rocket launchers," despite neither of them being "firearms" and neither of them primarily being used for self-defense or hunting.
But the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "firearms", it says "arms". Is "arms" limited only to guns and rifles?

The definition of "assault weapon" is more of an "eyes of the beholder" thing in the gun debate
Then you would not consider semi-autos to fall under the "assault weapon" category?
   4634. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:22 AM (#4331329)
Nope. But civilians can purchase semi-automatic assault rifles. Full auto is illegal (except in Kansas, oddly).

If you don't think the two are synonyms, why did you reply to a comment about assault rifles with a recap of the assault weapons ban?

***
But the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "firearms", it says "arms". Is "arms" limited only to guns and rifles?

Well, in #4600, you asked about firearms, so that's what I answered. But anyway, the Second Amendment says "keep and bear." Aside from suicide bombers, one doesn't "bear" a grenade or suitcase nuke. One does "bear" a machine gun or rocket launcher, but that's where the "well regulated" part kicks in.

Then you would not consider semi-autos to fall under the "assault weapon" category?

All semi-autos, including handguns? No.
   4635. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:31 AM (#4331331)
Then you would not consider semi-autos to fall under the "assault weapon" category?


Not all semi-autos, just some with certain features. Nobody (involved in the '94 law) thought (all semi-auto fell under assault weapon definition, if they did, they were morons) so either. The term is not a defined term in terms of there being a 'list of assault weapons', that's one of many problems with that law. It was as feckless as trying to ban 'muscle cars' or something. We could play the adult version of 'Highlights' with photos 'A' and 'B' of a very similar looking firearm, and one is defined as an 'assault weapon' and one is not, yet both are semi-automatic, you find the differences. A pistol grip, bayonet attachment, 'fire suppressor', etc. The law was totally cosmetic, Washington was 'doing something' about guns, nevermind the frenzied purchase rates of 'assault weapons' prior to the law taking effect, and the rather ease at which a non 'assault weapon' could be purchased and turned into an 'assault weapon.'
   4636. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:43 AM (#4331334)
One does "bear" a machine gun or rocket launcher, but that's where the "well regulated" part kicks in.
See, that's all I wanted to know. Was that so hard? So you do believe in infringements on the 2nd Amendment. The argument, then, is not in whether or not to have regulations, but what those regulations should be.

The law was totally cosmetic, Washington was 'doing something' about guns, nevermind the frenzied purchase rates of 'assault weapons' prior to the law taking effect, and the rather ease at which a non 'assault weapon' could be purchased and turned into an 'assault weapon.'
This is what I believe as well, that there really isn't much of an operational difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a fully automatic one when it comes to domestic individual self-defense/hunting/whatever. That's why these definitions are important in the discussion. Once you define the terms, then you can look at the argument more closely. If there's little real-world difference between semi- and fully-automatics, then what's the point of regulating fully-autos without regulating semi-autos? If one is in support of regulating or banning fully-automatic weapons but not semi-automatic weapons, what's the rationale behind making that distinction?
   4637. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 23, 2012 at 03:06 AM (#4331335)
See, that's all I wanted to know. Was that so hard? So you do believe in infringements on the 2nd Amendment. The argument, then, is not in whether or not to have regulations, but what those regulations should be.

But it's not really an "infringement" unless you believe the Second Amendment is absolute, and only some ultra-fringe libertarians have ever believed that. An infringement would be to claim that banning all private possession of firearms could somehow be consistent with the right to "keep and bear arms," with "arms" suddenly no longer including firearms (as, e.g., Sam likes to argue here).

This is what I believe as well, that there really isn't much of an operational difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a fully automatic one when it comes to domestic individual self-defense/hunting/whatever. That's why these definitions are important in the discussion. Once you define the terms, then you can look at the argument more closely. If there's little real-world difference between semi- and fully-automatics, then what's the point of regulating fully-autos without regulating semi-autos? If one is in support of regulating or banning fully-automatic weapons but not semi-automatic weapons, what's the rationale behind making that distinction?

You don't think there's much difference between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon? Have a look.
   4638. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 23, 2012 at 04:21 AM (#4331342)
You don't think there's much difference between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon? Have a look.
That's kind of not what I said at all; perhaps I should have been clearer. The context of my reply was that I agreed with #4635 about the ease with which semi-autos could be converted to fully-autos, and in that sense, regulating one and not the other made little sense.

One more personal note before bed: I grew up in a high-crime area, and we had a gun in the house. My brother and I found it when we were kids, and of course we played with it. We never loaded it — I was old enough to know better — but it's easy to see how a younger or less restrained child could have done serious damage with it. I don't want one in my house, but I have no problem with someone else wanting to own one.

My uncle owned a rifle and a shotgun, and would sometimes take us shooting out in the desert. I can't imagine using a rifle for home defense, especially in the city or suburbia. Big, bulky, cumbersome and dangerous. I just don't get the attraction.
   4639. DKDC Posted: December 23, 2012 at 10:14 AM (#4331376)
You don't think there's much difference between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon


For a rifle fired from the shoulder, full auto is a gimmick because the recoil makes it impossible to fire accurately. Soldiers are trained to use single-shot and three round burst mode because they are far more effective, and most shooters are more deadly on single shot mode.

If the goal of a ban is to make mass shooters less deadly, it would need to ban sale and ownership of all semiautomatic weapons. Hunters can keep their bolt action rifles and shot guns, and home defenders could keep their revolvers. Those weapons would still be deadly in the hands of a madman, but the effective rate of fire on those guns over an extended period of time would save lives.

I have no need for a gun, so I'd fully support such a ban in theory, but the practice of forcing the surrender of hundreds of millions of firearms would be challenging, to say the least.
   4640. spike Posted: December 23, 2012 at 10:23 AM (#4331379)
Not to mention, a quality semi-auto can get off 2-3 shots per second, as discussed earlier. Full auto vs semi auto is a distinction without much practical difference in terms of lethality or supressing fire.
   4641. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 23, 2012 at 10:25 AM (#4331380)
i know folks will tear the comparison to pieces but over the last 20 years between tech advances and market demands the incident of building fires has fallen so far as to make fire depts increasingly irrelevant. fire depts waste a lot of time tagging along with ambulance calls versus actual fires

meanwhile, evryone stands around looking dumb as angry and/or crazy people shoot up public places

just find that odd

and.........disappointing to state it mildly
   4642. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: December 23, 2012 at 10:33 AM (#4331383)
I have no need for a gun, so I'd fully support such a ban in theory, but the practice of forcing the surrender of hundreds of millions of firearms would be challenging, to say the least.


Put a special tax on ammunition and use the proceeds for a buy back program.
   4643. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: December 23, 2012 at 10:34 AM (#4331384)
Five thousand seven hundred and forty children and teens died from gunfire in the United States, just in 2008 and 2009...


But how many were killed by flat screen TVs and ping pongs?
   4644. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: December 23, 2012 at 10:44 AM (#4331387)
This is beyond words.

Why would someone own a military-style rifle? :

Michigan gun owner Ethan Daniels describes his enthusiasm for his rifle more succinctly, saying, "I like to shoot, and that is one heck of a fun carbine to plink with."

"There are people who buy certain types of firearms because they have a certain image -- the AR-15 is one of them. "A lot of people buy the AR-15 because, well, it's cool."

I am a proud owner of an AK-47," writes iReporter INGunOwner. "It's a terrific gun. Lots of fun to shoot.


By all means, lets defend to the death the right's of these people to have fun and look cool, to the exclusion of all consequences.

   4645. DKDC Posted: December 23, 2012 at 11:00 AM (#4331391)
Put a special tax on ammunition and use the proceeds for a buy back program.


That's part of the cost, but what about the gun owners who refuse? If its 1 in 100 (and I suspect it would be higher even with stiff federal sentences), then you need to have ATF hunt down, raid, arrest , and prosecute a couple million holdouts. And then you have to house and feed them in federal prison for 5-10 years. And there will be a subset of those folks who will live out their Heston fantasy and take down some ATF agents in the process.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try just because its hard, but you need to be realistic about how difficult it would be.
   4646. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: December 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4331394)
That's part of the cost, but what about the gun owners who refuse? If its 1 in 100 (and I suspect it would be higher even with stiff federal sentences), then you need to have ATF hunt down, raid, arrest , and prosecute a couple million holdouts. And then you have to house and feed them in federal prison for 5-10 years. And there will be a subset of those folks who will live out their Heston fantasy and take down some ATF agents in the process.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try just because its hard, but you need to be realistic about how difficult it would be.


You have a voluntary buy back program, outlaw new sales, and enact laws with stiff penalties for possession. It may take a generation or 2, but it could be done.
   4647. DA Baracus Posted: December 23, 2012 at 11:15 AM (#4331396)
LaPierre is very good at his job of being as stubborn as possible on Meet the Press.

LaPierre: If we had armed guards at schools, isn't it possible that this wouldn't happen?

Gregory: Yes. And if we had limits on magazine clips, isn't possible fewer kids would have died?

LaPierre: No.
   4648. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 23, 2012 at 11:21 AM (#4331399)
You know, maybe that fake Morgan Freeman rant was right and the problem is in the way these things are covered by the press. For instance, if they didn't report on the NRA's insane press events or invite their propagandists onto the Sunday morning talk shows...
   4649. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: December 23, 2012 at 11:27 AM (#4331401)
Whoa, deja vu!

Here's how Joe answered the question about where to draw the line a month ago:

I don't have a comprehensive list, and I'm sure some items on such a list would be cause for debate.


So [4609] represents some real kind of progress here. Unfortunately, pretty much everything else suggests this is just gonna keep going in circles.
   4650. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: December 23, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4331406)
For a rifle fired from the shoulder, full auto is a gimmick because the recoil makes it impossible to fire accurately. Soldiers are trained to use single-shot and three round burst mode because they are far more effective, and most shooters are more deadly on single shot mode.


Automatic fire is good for one thing; cover fire. No one aims at a target if they're on full auto. They're laying down cover fire while members of their squad maneuver for position.
   4651. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: December 23, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4331418)
LaPierre is very good at his job of being as stubborn as possible on Meet the Press.

LaPierre: If we had armed guards at schools, isn't it possible that this wouldn't happen?

Gregory: Yes. And if we had limits on magazine clips, isn't possible fewer kids would have died?

LaPierre: No.


Gregory whiffed on a few fat ones. He kept pressing the point that if ammunition clips were regulated, isn't it possible that Lanza would have killed fewer people? Wayne kept bringing up Columbine, that it happened during the assault weapons ban as proof that weapons bans don't work. The obvious follow up is "if the perpetrators of Columbine had semi automatic weapons with 31 round clips, isn't it possible they would have killed a lot more?"
   4652. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4331420)
Wayne kept bringing up Columbine, that it happened during the assault weapons ban as proof that weapons bans don't work. The obvious follow up is "if the perpetrators of Columbine had semi automatic weapons with 31 round clips, isn't it possible they would have killed a lot more?"


The even more obvious follow up is "There was an armed guard on duty at Columbine."
   4653. Morty Causa Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:06 PM (#4331422)
Steven Pinker on violence and on what to do in response to Newtown

A number of people have mentioned Pinker and his most recent book The Better Angels of Our Nature, in which he argues we've, on the whole, have become much less violence through the eons. This interview, about thirty minutes, serves as concise precis of his book and its thesis.

Many of us here will probably find Pinker's conclusions unsatisfying, since he advises we don't obsess about things like Newtown and don't get carried away by trying to enact extreme and bizarre solutions. He may come across to some of us and as too objective, too dispassionate, too level-headed, but remember he's not advocating we do nothing as to the larger problem of violence, just that we be smart about allocating resources for solutions.
   4654. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4331424)
The even more obvious follow up is "There was an armed guard on duty at Columbine."


That actually was brought up. Wayne responded that the ROE in place at the time forbade the guard from acting. His only duty was to call the police. I don't know if that's true, but it went unchallenged.

But the "assault weapons ban was in place and Columbine still occurred" is such nonsense that it demands a response. Imagine if someone said "We don't need to worry about nuclear proliferation. Al-Qaeda didn't have nukes and 911 still happened." It's like someone saying that global warming is a hoax because it's snowing in Boston in December.
   4655. CrosbyBird Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4331425)
I am against concealed carry laws in dense urban areas.

I'm curious as to why. I'm more inclined to allow ONLY concealed carry in dense urban areas. It seems to me that a concealed weapon is more secured and I like the idea that you don't announce who has and does not have a gun.
   4656. DA Baracus Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4331427)
That actually was brought up. Wayne responded that the ROE in place at the time forbade the guard from acting. His only duty was to call the police. I don't know if that's true, but it went unchallenged.


It's not true. The guard on duty was a deputy sheriff and returned fire, but did not hit the shooters.
   4657. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4331428)
Lapierre is getting killed on meet the press, and I'm loving it. he cant even agree to his own statements. then tries to run an end around
   4658. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4331430)
This line of questioning is a trap. JoeK and Ray and others won't admit that any other country on Earth is a relevant comparison, because pretty much every large-body study on gun control is going to work against their argument.


I am fascinated by conservatives, they are generally very bizarrely illogical outside of certain narrow fields. When talking about the US, it is always in danger of complete collapse and/or turning into an authoritarian tyranny (liberal hellhole). But when talk of the world comes around the US is great, wonderful and exceptional to the point that no other nation compares.

Taken together this view point - the US tottering on the precipice and still far better than the rest of the world would lead one to believe the rest of the world is terrible and likely getting worse. But of course that is nonsense as the world is in large part getting better and an ever increasing chunk of the world is a very fine place to be.

Very odd.

NOTE: As an aside I love how the fact that Joe thinks the US is ~15 times larger than Australia means nothing from Australia's history can be used to guide the US. Because every proof of concept, every statistical study has to be much larger than ... oh wait of course it doesn't.
   4659. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:26 PM (#4331432)
Another good part is the fact that the experience of whole nations applying gun control laws means nothing, but when cities in the US try (and somewhat fail for obvious reasons) that settles it that gun control can't work.
   4660. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:26 PM (#4331433)
Wayne responded that the ROE in place at the time forbade the guard from acting. His only duty was to call the police.


Well, he was fired on and he returned fire (both missed). That happened before he called for backup. I've not seen anything about ROE in place the time, but obviously that all goes out the window when the assailant shoots at you.
   4661. Dale Sams Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4331434)
OT from what we're talking about:

Remember when you could buy memorabilia before movies?

I think the "Les Miz" people are really missing out by not selling white, blue and red hankies before the show.
   4662. Random Transaction Generator Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:34 PM (#4331438)
LaPierre: If we had armed guards at schools, isn't it possible that this wouldn't happen?

Gregory: Yes. And if we had limits on magazine clips, isn't possible fewer kids would have died?

LaPierre: No. Anybody with a gun could kill as many kids as they want if they brought enough guns with them, regardless of ammo limits we put on them. That's what gun owners want and that's how the guns are designed to work.


You know he was thinking it...
   4663. Greg K Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4331441)
I think the "Les Miz" people are really missing out by not selling white, blue and red hankies before the show.

The preferred abbreviation is Les Mis!

What I find curious is that every woman I've ever discussed Les Mis with identifies with, and given the chance would play, Eponine rather than Cosette. I suppose it is that gender's version of Charlie Kelly.
   4664. DA Baracus Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:40 PM (#4331442)
Anybody with a gun could kill as many kids as they want if they brought enough guns with them, regardless of ammo limits we put on them. That's what gun owners want and that's how the guns are designed to work.

You know he was thinking it...


He would later say everything but the last sentence. And he's not completely wrong. Adam Lanza was hell bent on doing what he did. It's the purposeful stubbornness that makes LaPierre a clown. As Chuck Schumer said, his tonedeaf stonewalling will actually help get laws that he opposes passed.
   4665. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4331446)
As Chuck Schumer said, his tonedeaf stonewalling will actually help get laws that he opposes passed.


So that's what they meant when they said they wanted to be part of the solution!
   4666. tshipman Posted: December 23, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4331450)
He would later say everything but the last sentence. And he's not completely wrong. Adam Lanza was hell bent on doing what he did.


I think this sort of statement ignores just how often people make threats that are not converted into action. Lanza didn't get grenades, did he? Grenades would have made him more effective. There are barriers that can be put in place with policy that can help prevent actions like these from being more deadly.

It's possible that if the only gun he had available to him was a Winchester Repeater, he still would have killed that many kids, but it's much less likely.
   4667. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4331451)
What I find curious is that every woman I've ever discussed Les Mis with identifies with, and given the chance would play, Eponine rather than Cosette. I suppose it is that gender's version of Charlie Kelly.


Of course they do. Eponine has better songs.
   4668. Greg K Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4331453)
Of course they do. Eponine has better songs.

I hadn't considered that angle!

Though to be fair Charlie Kelly has even better songs.
   4669. Dale Sams Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4331459)
My preferred role in Les Mis would be The Bishop of Digne. Show up, do your thing...go home, come back three hours later for the end. and I'd dodge that if I could.
   4670. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4331467)
as i learn more of how last week went down i think the president is being too much the tough guy

if he accepted cuts still less than what will happen the speaker might have the votes

gop folks need a legit story to offset being branded a traitor to the tax cause

i wrote a while back the president had to understand he was asking pols to break solemn promises to their voters and he needed to help them

i completely understand he has the upper hand but that doesn't mean he has to roll tr other guy completely

what's wrong with 4 trillion in cuts for the tax stuff he wants?

we are going there anyway

think the president is overplaying a strong hand
   4671. Steve Treder Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4331471)
think the president is overplaying a strong hand

Firmly disagree. He's playing his strong hand just the way a strong hand should be played. It's the GOP that's botching the task of playing the weak hand.
   4672. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4331473)
steve

the congressfolks who are standing in the way won't get punished by their voters

and does the president want to deal with the current speaker or someone is a true believer?

i suppor the speaker not eating a horrible deal.
   4673. McCoy Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4331477)
the congressfolks who are standing in the way won't get punished by their voters

Yeah but the GOP congressfolk who aren't standing in the way can and will get punished by their voters. Obama is supposed to weaken his stance even further for a small handful of congressman in whacko districts?
   4674. tshipman Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4331478)
as i learn more of how last week went down i think the president is being too much the tough guy


So a Republican thinks that the President is asking for too much in a deficit reduction deal?

Color me shocked.

what's wrong with 4 trillion in cuts for the tax stuff he wants?


He's already cut over a trillion. He offered over a trillion more in cuts. Republicans responded by claiming that interest savings aren't real (despite them using them in the past).

It's impossible to cut 4 trillion without severely impacting Medicare, Medicaid or defense. The president is firmly opposed to the first two being slashed.
   4675. Dan The Mediocre Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4331481)
My question for Harveys is this: what reason does Obama have to think he is better off making a deal now rather than after January 3rd?
   4676. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:54 PM (#4331482)
i am fine with defense cuts

i have acknowledged regularly that the gop was going to have eat sh$t

but this current is eat sh&t and have seconds and thirds

that is not going to happen

so it's on to january barring someone having a brainstorm
   4677. GregD Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:58 PM (#4331487)
It's hard to say since none of us know exactly what went on. After the breakdown of negotiations in the last debt ceiling, both sides put out pretty active misinformation, and I assume the same is happening now.

I'll hold off until at least early January. The hurdle now was getting enough Republican votes on what would be termed a tax increase in the weeks before the House for the Speaker. I suspect Obama had doubts that Boehner could get any deal at all through his caucus and that Boehner would understandably not take a deal without caucus support to the floor until the House re-elected him Speaker.

In January, after the tax increases automatically take effect and Boehner is re-elected, it's possible that the caucus will back a bill that solely reduces taxes or that Boehner would take a bill to the floor without caucus majority support.

The one thing I think Obama has to stand firm on is the debt ceiling nonsense. They should take that essentially off the table forever. If Congress passes budget and revenue plans, it is authorizing the debt to pay for that budget. There could be some kind of system built in so that if the numbers go too far beyond Congress' budget then Congress could get a chance to weigh in.

But the constant double-dipping is absurd and destructive to the country, and I would think so if it were a Republican president and a Democratic congress.

You can run deficits forever but you can't mess with your credit worthiness. That's just basic, the key thing that Hamilton learned from the Brits.

I could accept a weakish deal that takes that nonsense off the table but would reject a great deal that set up for another debt ceiling showdown in a couple of months.
   4678. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 23, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4331488)
dan

because some of this psychological

once folks go over the edge and the world doesn't end the fear factor will not exist

market drops won't faze the hard core. heir voters hate wall street and have few investments

and the lame duck guys willing to deal will be gone

offset by more dems but enough?
   4679. DA Baracus Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4331490)
I think this sort of statement ignores just how often people make threats that are not converted into action. Lanza didn't get grenades, did he? Grenades would have made him more effective. There are barriers that can be put in place with policy that can help prevent actions like these from being more deadly.

It's possible that if the only gun he had available to him was a Winchester Repeater, he still would have killed that many kids, but it's much less likely.


I agree with you that we should have barriers. LaPierre's take on it is like Ray's "well then let's not do anything about it." That's obviously absurd.
   4680. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4331493)
packer game so checking out
   4681. greenback calls it soccer Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4331497)
market drops won't faze the hard core. their voters hate wall street and have few investments

I've been reading too much about the middle of the 19th century, but it seems like the Republican Party is destined to split into two pieces. And again that divide will largely be between the South on one side and everything else on the other.
   4682. Tripon Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:17 PM (#4331503)
Time for the Whig party to make its triumphant return. Vote for President Chris Christie in 2020.

   4683. Tripon Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:21 PM (#4331506)
On a more serious note, it seemed the Republican party has been heading for a split for a while. It should have happened with the Tea party in 2009, and the Republicans should have let that small party try to win on a small local level before dying out as another small 3rd party. But they saw the fevor and the easy votes they could have with Tea Partiers and they took the easy way out and let the Tea Party co-adopt the Republican brand, and now they're paying for it.

Really, its brand confusion. There should be no reason for Tea Party and Republican Party to be interchangeable like it is, but it happened and now they have to deal with it. You certainly don't see this on the left like with the Democratic Party and the Green Party.
   4684. McCoy Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4331508)
All I know is that all this nonsense is costing DC establishments a fortune. Down to just 2 official inaugural balls and even those have been scaled back. Nobody wants to appear to be partying it up when the nation has gone over the "fiscal cliff". Though I have been told that if Romney had won the inauguration weekend would have been epic in its proportions.
   4685. Steve Treder Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:24 PM (#4331510)
it seemed the Republican party has been heading for a split for a while.

Some of us have been saying this for a few years now.
   4686. GregD Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:24 PM (#4331512)
I've been reading too much about the middle of the 19th century, but it seems like the Republican Party is destined to split into two pieces. And again that divide will largely be between the South on one side and everything else on the other.
Is this true? On fiscal issues I would guess most Great Plains/SW Republicans are hard to distinguish from Southerners. Not so on social issues perhaps.

The Tea Party caucus of course is chaired by a Minnesotan, and includes reps from Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Montana, Nebraska, Michigan, Indiana, inland California, and almost the entire Kansas delegation.
   4687. tshipman Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4331517)
i am fine with defense cuts

i have acknowledged regularly that the gop was going to have eat sh$t

but this current is eat sh&t and have seconds and thirds


I mean, I don't get this.

The president's asks are for around 1.2 trillion in higher taxes, modest stimulative measures (extension of unemployment, payroll tax stuff), and de-fusing the debt ceiling. In exchange, he's willing to cut mandatory spending rather than defense, and is willing to exempt some amount of income between 250 and 400K from the tax hikes.

How is this eat #### and take seconds and thirds? Stimulative tax cuts are now anti-GOP agenda? Acting irresponsibly over the debt ceiling is a god-given right?
   4688. Steve Treder Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:45 PM (#4331519)
How is this eat #### and take seconds and thirds?

In no reasonable sense.
   4689. Tripon Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:52 PM (#4331521)
Harveys' correct that the Republicans needs to bring something back to their constituents, I just don't see what they're doing to make it happen. The stonewalling doesn't seem to have an exit strategy for instance. It might make sense if there was another election coming up, and it was a play to show a clear difference between Republican Party values and Obama and the Democrats. But that card was already played and it didn't work. Is the goal now is to wait another two years and see if it works in 2014?

Just a weird strategy to employ right after a major election.
   4690. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: December 23, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4331523)
Repeated from [4548] as it seems relevant to Harvey's [4670] and subsequent responses....
Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn't reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.

At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, "I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?"

"You get nothing," the president said. "I get that for free."

(emphasis added)
   4691. Steve Treder Posted: December 23, 2012 at 03:11 PM (#4331530)
"You get nothing," the president said. "I get that for free."

Which he most certainly does, of course. To fail to comprehend this basic point is to fail to understand what the combination of the fiscal cliff and the November election results mean for the GOP bargaining position.

What part of the concept "weak hand" do Boehner and the GOP not understand?
   4692. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 23, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4331532)
"You get nothing," the president said. "I get that for free."


Maybe this is just a quibble, but I wish he had said, "I get that for winning the freaking election by five million freaking votes" instead.
   4693. CrosbyBird Posted: December 23, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4331533)
I am fascinated by conservatives, they are generally very bizarrely illogical outside of certain narrow fields. When talking about the US, it is always in danger of complete collapse and/or turning into an authoritarian tyranny (liberal hellhole). But when talk of the world comes around the US is great, wonderful and exceptional to the point that no other nation compares.

I don't think there's any reasonable argument against the idea that the US is fundamentally different from every other nation in the world. It's not that nothing anyone else does matters or provides any guidance as to our own best policies, but that everything from our culture's emphasis on the individual, our diversity in matters of race, religion, and politics, our size, our system of government, and even our isolation from the rest of the world make it difficult (not impossible, but different) to compare policy.

This does not make us inherently better than any other country. There are certain values (some of which I am afraid are eroding) about speech and privacy that I think are superior to the alternatives, but we also have certain values (some of which I am afraid are being reinforced) that we could stand to change about our relative importance in the world. Our best hope is that we are in the last age of the superpower, and that we'll move to a world government of some sort rather than have a new superpower pass us, because I don't know how we would deal with being in second place.
   4694. base ball chick Posted: December 23, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4331548)
hello boyz of lounge V2.0

merry holidays


so rest ye merry gentlemen may nothing you dismay
cuz there is always something to argue bout ever single day...
   4695. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: December 23, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4331559)
For some reason my HotTopics thinks there are seven more posts in this thread than there actually are (deletions?).
   4696. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: December 23, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4331560)
It's pretty annoying since when you click 'last', it takes you to a non-existent /P4700.
   4697. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: December 23, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4331562)
Pretty annoying huh?
   4698. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: December 23, 2012 at 04:33 PM (#4331563)
Pretty, pretty, annoying.
   4699. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 23, 2012 at 04:33 PM (#4331564)
Yes. Some posts a few pages back got deleted.

EDIT: and if I told you why, this post would have to get deleted, too.
   4700. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: December 23, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4331566)
Hence all these posts. Sorry about that.
Page 47 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Randy Jones
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(6 - 2:36am, Sep 02)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogTrevor Hoffman's Hall of Fame induction seems inevitable
(7 - 2:30am, Sep 02)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(103 - 2:27am, Sep 02)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogNitkowski: Wanted: Major League manager...sort of.
(8 - 2:07am, Sep 02)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-1-2014
(40 - 2:01am, Sep 02)
Last: MNB

NewsblogAstros Fire Bo Porter
(57 - 1:54am, Sep 02)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogRobothal: Changed [Manny] Ramirez enjoyed helping Cubs prospects grow
(13 - 1:27am, Sep 02)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Ballot
(10 - 1:12am, Sep 02)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogHBT: Jorge Soler with an extra-base hit in each of his first five games
(2 - 1:02am, Sep 02)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(28 - 1:00am, Sep 02)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogRon Roenicke rips into home-plate umpire
(17 - 12:18am, Sep 02)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogBlue Jays Acquire Mayberry Jr.
(7 - 12:10am, Sep 02)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogAthletics Acquire Adam Dunn
(43 - 11:46pm, Sep 01)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(986 - 11:25pm, Sep 01)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogOT:  2014 College Football pre-season thread
(101 - 11:17pm, Sep 01)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

Page rendered in 1.0906 seconds
52 querie(s) executed