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

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

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 87 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 85 86 87 88 89 >  Last ›
   8601. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM (#4304205)
If enough people believe in something strongly enough to fight to the death for it, there's not much you can do.


Yes.
   8602. JL Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:55 AM (#4304207)
What, you mean that conservatives didn't support these guys or these folks? I would have sworn....

Fox News was up in arms (pun fully intended) when the Black Panthers were opening doors for old white ladies at polling places. Image if they had needed to holster their gun before reaching for the door!
   8603. bunyon Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4304209)
If enough people believe in something strongly enough to fight to the death for it, there's not much you can do.

You can kill them all. Which we haven't done.


Also, I'm not defending our actions, either. The fact that a bunch of folks had it worse 75 years ago would be pretty lousy solace if you're getting shot every day.
   8604. The Good Face Posted: November 16, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4304210)
The usual answer by conservatives is that it reflects the fundamental right to self-defense.


No, this is an argument leftists put in the mouths of 2nd Amendment civil libertarians. The right to bear arms is about liberty, not self-defense. Honestly, 8590 is an absolute train wreck of a post.
   8605. Lassus Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:07 AM (#4304216)
The usual answer by conservatives is that it reflects the fundamental right to self-defense.
No, this is an argument leftists put in the mouths of 2nd Amendment civil libertarians.

I do not believe you are speaking about the same people.

Also, as a resident, Szym himself argued vehemently for self-defense as the primary reason for gun ownership in places like Baltimore. No one but him put self-defense in his mouth as that reason.
   8606. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4304217)
You can kill them all. Which we haven't done.


You certainly can, but not without bankrupting your country, as you are learning.
   8607. The Good Face Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM (#4304220)
The usual answer by conservatives is that it reflects the fundamental right to self-defense.

No, this is an argument leftists put in the mouths of 2nd Amendment civil libertarians.

I do not believe you are speaking about the same people.


Civil rights liberals don't give a #### about are still civil rights. This has been explained to you.
   8608. spike Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4304222)
You certainly can, but not without bankrupting your country, as you are learning

I think it would be far cheaper to kill them all (NOT saying that it ought be policy). Indiscriminate attacks can be launched with weapons that are much less expensive in terms of human and dollar cost (to the attacking country, anyway).
   8609. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:17 AM (#4304226)

Civil rights liberals don't give a #### about are still civil rights. This has been explained to you.


I am addressing the arguments conservatives make, not the arguments libertarians make. Lassus was correct. And the arguments I discussed have been made by many, many conservatives, including my own relatives, NRA spokesmen, and conservatives on this board and others I frequent.
   8610. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:19 AM (#4304228)
Civil rights liberals don't give a #### about are still civil rights. This has been explained to you.


So long as all sides are putting positions into each others mouths/brains I am sure we can make fine progress in this discussion.
   8611. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM (#4304229)
The right to bear arms is about liberty, not self-defense.

You may want to inform the GOP and the NRA-ILA, which seems to support the GOP's official playform.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/gop-adopts-strongly-pro-gun-platform.aspx

The GOP platform never mentions liberty but its second sentence is: "We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen's God-given right of self-defense."

EDIT: NRA-ILM adds: The inclusion of specific issues, such as the right to self-defense, opposition to the semi-auto ban, and support for interstate Right-to-Carry reciprocity makes this the most pro-Second Amendment position ever included in a major party platform.
   8612. Lassus Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM (#4304230)
Civil rights liberals don't give a #### about are still civil rights. This has been explained to you.

What in the bloody hell are you talking about? I quoted YOU saying "civil libertarians" and Bitter Mouse saying "conservatives", and said those are two different groups. I didn't say a freaking thing about who gives a #### about what.

Also, in regards to the other part, are you still saying people aren't using self-defense as a reason for the right to bear arms? I don't even think self-defense is a bad argument, at all. To say that argument isn't being made in regards to the 2nd amendment is pretty odd.
   8613. The Good Face Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM (#4304231)
Civil rights liberals don't give a #### about are still civil rights. This has been explained to you.


I am addressing the arguments conservatives make, not the arguments libertarians make. Lassus was correct.


No, you're not. Furthermore, you included an attack on libertarianism in your nutty little screed AND conflated self-defense and liberty. I wouldn't expect the standards of academic scholarship to apply to a BBTF post, but that was just an abject mess.
   8614. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4304234)
In an era where its becoming almost routine for SWAT teams to bust into homes and kill someone, only to find out that they had the wrong house (without even getting into their flimsy justifications for killing the suspect), I think everyone should be able to keep a gun in their home. I know if I was in bed and someone busted down the door and stormed in, I'd probably hunker down and keep shooting til they were all dead.
   8615. The Good Face Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4304235)
What in the bloody hell are you talking about? I quoted one of you saying "civil libertarians" and the other saying "conservatives". WTF do you get "civil rights liberals" from in order to start barking?


Conservatives typically ARE civil libertarians on the subject of 2nd Amendment rights.

Also, in regards to the other part, are you still saying people aren't using self-defense as a reason for the right to bear arms? I don't even think it's a bad argument, at all. But to say they aren't using that argument is pretty odd.


It's a good argument for public consumption, it plays well with most people. But the 2nd Amendment is about much more than self-defense.
   8616. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4304236)
Bitter Mouse saying "conservatives"


I don't think I did that in this sub-thread (well maybe way back when I quoted the full text of the 2nd Amendment, but I don't think since). I am trying to stay out (mostly) of the Gun rights debate, because it is not a hot button of mine.

Anyway I have lost track of where we are in this debate and have not added much in any event, but I will gladly sign up for the generic Liberal position.
   8617. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4304237)
In an era where its becoming almost routine for SWAT teams to bust into homes and kill someone, only to find out that they had the wrong house (without even getting into their flimsy justifications for killing the suspect), I think everyone should be able to keep a gun in their home. I know if I was in bed and someone busted down the door and stormed in, I'd probably hunker down and keep shooting til they were all dead.


I think this is a truly terrible solution for a truly terrible problem. I can't decide if I need to first agree with your disgust in the problem or sound off against the alleged solution.

EDIT: I think I would rather protest the militarization of our police first. Then suggest your solution is off base.
   8618. DA Baracus Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4304239)
In an era where its becoming almost routine for SWAT teams to bust into homes and kill someone, only to find out that they had the wrong house


Hyperbole much?
   8619. Lassus Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4304240)
Conservatives typically ARE civil libertarians on the subject of 2nd Amendment rights.

Fair enough (and I edited my entry because I'm a busybody), but I think plenty of conservatives would balk at self-identifying the way you decided to identify them.


It's a good argument for public consumption, it plays well with most people. But the 2nd Amendment is about much more than self-defense.

That's all well and good, but if you say that argument is being put, by liberals, in the mouths of... well, whatever group you want to distinghuish, that's up to you, you're simply wrong. I cited Szym, and the list could go on. People make the argument, and often. If you think that argument is wrong, that's not the same as giving liberals the credit/blame for it being made by conservatives and gun-rights advocates.
   8620. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4304241)
But the 2nd Amendment is about much more than self-defense.


Who says so? And what's his authority? And does that "much more" encompass the negative as well as the positive?
   8621. The District Attorney Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4304243)
In the list of gun deaths per capita, I initially misread "Swaziland" as "Switzerland" and wondered how being neutral led to gun deaths.
Or knives.
   8622. The Good Face Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:46 AM (#4304244)
In an era where its becoming almost routine for SWAT teams to bust into homes and kill someone, only to find out that they had the wrong house (without even getting into their flimsy justifications for killing the suspect), I think everyone should be able to keep a gun in their home. I know if I was in bed and someone busted down the door and stormed in, I'd probably hunker down and keep shooting til they were all dead.


Notwithstanding the advisability of shooting at a SWAT team (my advice; don't), no-knock raids are a travesty. Both that they occur with anything close to the frequency that they do and in the almost complete lack of consequences for those who manage to botch them.

I understand why the militarization of the police is taking place; bigger budgets for paramilitary goodies and empire building for local officials. Fun for the cops too; they get to play dress up in expensive "tactical" gubbins and break ####. What I don't understand is why nobody on the left OR the right seems to care much about it.
   8623. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:47 AM (#4304246)
In an era where its becoming almost routine for SWAT teams to bust into homes and kill someone, only to find out that they had the wrong house (without even getting into their flimsy justifications for killing the suspect), I think everyone should be able to keep a gun in their home. I know if I was in bed and someone busted down the door and stormed in, I'd probably hunker down and keep shooting til they were all dead.


Thanks for confiding that. Now, we need to know where you live so we make sure we're not anywhere near there.
   8624. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4304247)
Then suggest your solution is off base.


I'm not saying it would be my preferred course of events by any means, but if it means the difference between myself and/or my family dying, I'd do it.

Hyperbole much?


I guess it depends on your definition of hyberbole. Botched Military Police Raids
   8625. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4304248)
Morty, I'm in Canada, and to my knowledge we haven't had any of thse botched raids, so you needn't worry.
   8626. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM (#4304251)
I understand why the militarization of the police is taking place; bigger budgets for paramilitary goodies and empire building for local officials. Fun for the cops too; they get to play dress up in expensive "tactical" gubbins and break ####. What I don't understand is why nobody on the left OR the right seems to care much about it.


Because, like the Patriot Act, it's hard to maintain a state of righteous dudgeon when it seems to be almost entirely based on that which is foreign to most everyone's experience.
   8627. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4304253)
Conservatives typically ARE civil libertarians on the subject of 2nd Amendment rights.


I bet, blind ante, that if you took a cross-section of a typical NRA meeting and asked them if, say, the Black Panthers should be allowed to arm up with military grade weaponry, they'd be less than 100% in support of that.
   8628. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4304254)
When you are the victim of a "wrong address" no-knock SWAT team raid, I'm sure you pulling out a gun and firing is going to help you survive the incident.

   8629. DA Baracus Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4304255)
I guess it depends on your definition of hyberbole. Botched Military Police Raids


Going back to 1985, "death of an innocent" has 47 results. "Almost routine" they are not.
   8630. Chicago Joe Posted: November 16, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4304259)
When you are the victim of a "wrong address" no-knock SWAT team raid, I'm sure you pulling out a gun and firing is going to help you survive the incident.

Not to mention that you'll be in the pokey forever if you open fire.
   8631. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:00 PM (#4304263)
Anyone catch part one of the new Olliver Stone history series.on showtime....interesting, but I wish it wasn't so closely tied to Stone, who has a somewhat deserved reputation for being an angry boomer crank (JFK is one of the worst and stupidest movies ever made about American History.)

But i am thrilled to see a show on TV challenging the USA as benevolent saintly nation shtick.
   8632. The Good Face Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4304265)
I bet, blind ante, that if you took a cross-section of a typical NRA meeting and asked them if, say, the Black Panthers should be allowed to arm up with military grade weaponry, they'd be less than 100% in support of that.


First, this is non-responsive to my original point.

Second, in America no group is 100% on anything, except, apparently, Obama voters in certain areas.

Third, I'd be shocked if a typical NRA meeting (is that like a "typical white person?") would 100% support any Americans being allowed to access military armaments. The NRA is not the boogeyman most lefties seem to imagine it is.
   8633. DA Baracus Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:04 PM (#4304268)
When you are the victim of a "wrong address" no-knock SWAT team raid, I'm sure you pulling out a gun and firing is going to help you survive the incident.


Such as this death of an innocent result:

Police say they announced themselves, though the Bowman's say they never heard it. Bobby Bowman, who says he thought he was being robbed, heard the commotion and came out of his bedroom with a gun. As police and Bowman exchanged fire, one bullet struck and killed Bowman's eight-year-old stepson, Xavier Bennett. Police found cocaine in Bowman's possession.


Or this one:

In an early morning drug raid on October 2, 1992, 31 officers from five police agencies break down the door to the multimillion dollar home of Donald Scott.

Frightened, Scott's wife screams, "Don't shoot me. Don't kill me." Hearing his wife's screams, Scott emerges from his bedroom holding a handgun, still groggy from a recent cataract operation. When Scott raises the gun in the direction of the police intruders, the raiding officers shoot him dead.


Or this one:

On April 30, 1997 at 5:30 am, police storm the bedroom of Luis Carrasco-Flores on a no-knock raid, part of a larger raid on three apartments. Flores awakes to the site of armed men in his room. He then pulls a pistol out from his pillow, at which point officers open fire and shoot him dead.


Or this:

Six police from Houston's anti-gang task raid the home of Pedro Oregon Navarro. Officers storm his bedroom, where Navarro awakes, startled and frightened, and reaches for his gun. Police open fire and shoot Navarro twelve times, killing him. His gun was never fired. Police found no drugs or evidence of drug use or sale in Navarro's home.


There are more, and there are others that are greyer.
   8634. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:05 PM (#4304269)
Not to mention that you'll be in the pokey forever if you open fire.


I may be naive but I don't know that this is true. Generally (to my very limited knowledge) the law is fairly friendly to people defending their home. So a no knock raid I am not sure any survivors would naturally be convicted of much. But IANAL.
   8635. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4304272)
But i am thrilled to see a show on TV challenging the USA as benevolent saintly nation shtick.

Where have you been for the last 55 years--just to keep it to the period since castigating America has gone mainstream?
   8636. The Good Face Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:16 PM (#4304284)
Then suggest your solution is off base.


I'm not saying it would be my preferred course of events by any means, but if it means the difference between myself and/or my family dying, I'd do it.


You'll be outnumbered, outgunned, and fighting adrenaline-loaded men wearing body armor. If you open fire, you'll almost certainly be killed or seriously wounded.

Of course, how's somebody just waking up to the sound of a home invasion at 2AM supposed to know it's the police as opposed to criminals? Especially some poor law abiding bastard who just happens to live in or near a bad neighborhood? That's why no-knock raids are so pernicious (and dangerous) and should only be reserved for cases where public safety is truly threatened.
   8637. just plain joe Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:16 PM (#4304285)
Not to mention that you'll be in the pokey forever if you open fire.


No, you will most likely end up dead, as post 8633 points out. Even non-SWAT police officers are likely to open fire if confronted by someone holding a firearm. Actually shooting at the police just makes it that much more likely you end up a well ventilated corpse.
   8638. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4304304)

No, you're not. Furthermore, you included an attack on libertarianism in your nutty little screed.


That was small-L libertarianism. Certainly conservatives depict their view of the Second Amendment as conducive to liberty. They just don't mean the same thing by that that a Libertarian would. Similarly a conservative can support democratic governance without supporting Democratic governance.


AND conflated self-defense and liberty.


Not sure what you mean here. The freedom that conservatives believe is enshrined in the Second Amendment is the freedom of self-defense. You appear to have a different opinion (it's difficult to tell). I suspect you would argue that liberty is an end in itself, rather than a means to an end: a well-ordered society (conservative) or a just society (liberal). Which is fine, that makes you a big-L libertarian, but I wasn't addressing that particular philosophy.

I wouldn't expect the standards of academic scholarship to apply to a BBTF post, but that was just an abject mess.


If you have any specific, substantive arguments to make I would be happy to consider them.
   8639. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4304306)
But i am thrilled to see a show on TV challenging the USA as benevolent saintly nation shtick.


Where have you been for the last 55 years--just to keep it to the period since castigating America has gone mainstream?

So are we talking about Amerikkka, or are we talking about the country that nearly half the country now wants to secede from? It's easy to get confused when half the outside world hates us, the other half of the outside world wants to live here, and nearly half our own country wants out. Has anyone here got a scorecard just to keep it all straight?
   8640. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM (#4304307)
8633:

1. You have links to this stuff.

2. Are you claiming these people would have been shot if they had not pulled a gun? There are ways of contesting inappropriate police behavior other than pulling a gun, no?

3. You do understand that any protocol is not perfect--unless your way of doing things is simply not doing anything. Mistakes will be made, whatever the policy is.

4. So, are these cases on the margins, mistakes (if they are mistakes) or are you saying there is this secret KGB force in the US that is not accountable in any way?
   8641. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4304312)
I think Joe K should stick to second amendment arguments, he's managed to string together several logically cohesive posts and is leading that debate fair and square (imho of course, ymmv).
Huh? He maintained that there was absolutely no justification for banning firearms, until he conceded that some people should be banned from owning firearms and that some firearms should be banned for everyone, which of course was not a concession.
   8642. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:43 PM (#4304313)
I don't want to derail the gun discussion, but as a longtime Hostess lover, I want to go on record as saying I hate all of these people:

Twinkies Maker Hostess Going Out of Business, CEO Blames Union Strike

Hostess, the makers of Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonder Bread, is going out of business after striking workers failed to heed a Thursday deadline to return to work, the company said.

“We deeply regret the necessity of today’s decision, but we do not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike,” Hostess CEO Gregory F. Rayburn said in announcing that the firm had filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to shutter its business. “Hostess Brands will move promptly to lay off most of its 18,500-member workforce and focus on selling its assets to the highest bidders.”

...

"Most employees who lose their jobs should be eligible for government-provided unemployment benefits," Hostess said.

The last sentence is the most puzzling. Why should people who walk away from their jobs be eligible for unemployment benefits?

This seems like a perfect example of the welfare state being far too generous. If you're a low-skill worker in 2012 America and you not only don't fear your job disappearing but strike your job out of existence, the "safety net" might be a little too safe.
   8643. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM (#4304317)
Huh? He maintained that there was absolutely no justification for banning firearms,

False.

until he conceded that some people should be banned from owning firearms and that some firearms should be banned for everyone, which of course was not a concession.

It wasn't a concession because I never claimed otherwise. You either confused me with someone else or you're bad at reading.
   8644. Chicago Joe Posted: November 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4304323)
In re: Hostess.

Rayburn responded that he had been “pretty straightforward in all the town hall meetings I’ve done at our plants to say that in this situation I think there is blame that goes around for everyone.”


Especially Joe, who apparently has not been consuming enough of their product.
/snark

What sort of blame lies on the workers? Did they suck at baking? Were the drivers constantly getting into wrecks?
   8645. Chicago Joe Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:00 PM (#4304328)
Greg Rayburn will burn your company down:
Greg joined Hostess in February, 2012 to oversee the Company’s reorganization under Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Greg previously served on the board of directors for A&P. With over 29 years of experience, Greg held positions as CEO, COO or CRO at various high-profile companies, including Indianapolis Downs, LLC; New York City Off Track Betting Assn.; Magna Entertainment Corp.; Sunterra Corp. and AAIPharma Services. He also notably served as CRO for WorldCom during what was then the largest U.S. bankruptcy filing in history.


   8646. Ron J2 Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:04 PM (#4304333)
I'm not saying it would be my preferred course of events by any means, but if it means the difference between myself and/or my family dying, I'd do it.


Here's the problem though. You've upped the certainty of your death to something approaching 100%. You're dealing with a trained SWAT team in body armor that is expecting violent resistance and is trained to deal with it.

EDIT: Cokes of course.
   8647. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4304334)
It wasn't a concession because I never claimed otherwise. You either confused me with someone else or you're bad at reading.

As Alan Gura argued in Heller or McDonald, there can't simultaneously be a right to possess firearms and a ban of possessing firearms.

EDIT: To be fair, it wasn't the "case closed" that a poster characterized it as--rather, your admission that some bans are justifiable was a clarification that the argument wasn't about principles, but rather practicalities. Where to set the price, to use the old whore analogy.
   8648. Ron J2 Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:11 PM (#4304338)
Morty, I'm in Canada, and to my knowledge we haven't had any of thse botched raids, so you needn't worry.


Actually we have. Won't surprise anybody that the SQ was involved. Can't find the details (there's a lot of noise in this kind of search) but memory says it was a couple of drywallers in a Laval hotel.

And for Rants, there's also the case of Basil Parasiris, who killed a cop in a botched drug raid.
   8649. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4304340)
EDIT: To be fair, it wasn't the "case closed" that a poster characterized it as--rather, your admission that some bans are justifiable was a clarification that the argument wasn't about principles, but rather practicalities. Where to set the price, to use the old whore analogy.

Yeah, you can play with my tits and finger #### me. That way I can still claim I'm a a virgin.
   8650. bunyon Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4304342)
Here's the problem though. You've upped the certainty of your death to something approaching 100%. You're dealing with a trained SWAT team in body armor that is expecting violent resistance and is trained to deal with it.

Right. A gun can be useful in self-defense provided you're a decent shot, cool under pressure, have some warning and are up against an aggressor with approximately the same numbers, firepower and training. Waking up groggy and then aiming - or, rather, holding up - a .38 you fired a few times a year ago against a SWAT assault force is suicide. I don't like these types of raids. But, if force is the answer - and I don't really think it is - then the way to do it is to assemble your own team of guys and perform no-knock raids on the chief of police or director of SWAT. i.e. launch a guerrilla war. It's also crazy but has the feature that it isn't guaranteed instantaneous death.

Trying to defend yourself with a handgun against these guys is crazy. What you do is lay down, obey orders and, at the first opportunity, call your lawyer who calls the press.
   8651. bunyon Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4304343)
That way I can still claim I'm a a virgin.

Hmm. I was thinking you sound like a guy who needs to get laid.
   8652. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:18 PM (#4304344)
What you do is lay down, obey orders and, at the first opportunity, call your lawyer who calls the press.


Or, what's more likely, cops a plea.
   8653. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4304345)
Hmm. I was thinking you sound like a guy who needs to get laid.


But you thinking it doesn't get me any closer to a solution.
   8654. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4304346)
EDIT: To be fair, it wasn't the "case closed" that a poster characterized it as--rather, your admission that some bans are justifiable was a clarification that the argument wasn't about principles, but rather practicalities.

I disagree with the last part. It's not at all a sellout of Second Amendment principles to deny convicted murderers or the mentally deranged from possessing firearms. As with the rest of the Constitution, the Second Amendment isn't a suicide pact.
   8655. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4304348)
And grenade launchers?
   8656. DA Baracus Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4304349)
8633:

1. You have links to this stuff.

2. Are you claiming these people would have been shot if they had not pulled a gun? There are ways of contesting inappropriate police behavior other than pulling a gun, no?

3. You do understand that any protocol is not perfect--unless your way of doing things is simply not doing anything. Mistakes will be made, whatever the policy is.

4. So, are these cases on the margins, mistakes (if they are mistakes) or are you saying there is this secret KGB force in the US that is not accountable in any way?


Are you asking these questions to me or to Rants? Because they seem like questions for him.
   8657. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4304350)
I think Joe K should stick to second amendment arguments, he's managed to string together several logically cohesive posts and is leading that debate fair and square (imho of course, ymmv).


Yes, what's logical and cohesive, I again ask. And Joe doesn't get to go back to his pristince assertions. He should address all the objections he's avoided and evaded.

   8658. bunyon Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4304351)
What you do is lay down, obey orders and, at the first opportunity, call your lawyer who calls the press.



Or, what's more likely, cops a plea.


Well, I am assume a "pure" accident. I'm probably being naive, but if the SWAT kicks my door down and searches my house, they're not going to find anything. If I can offer not selling my story to the press, I bet I end up getting off for no more than repairs to my house. It sucks and, in a just world, the SWAT would pay me. But I don't think I'd end up in jail. As would be the best case scenario if I pull a gun on them.


But you thinking it doesn't get me any closer to a solution.

Heh.
   8659. DA Baracus Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4304352)
I don't want to derail the gun discussion, but as a longtime Hostess lover, I want to go on record as saying I hate all of these people:


The Twinkie will return. Tastykake is a regional appeal product and it survived, the Hostess has national appeal and someone will buy it and bring it back. Might have to wait a little bit, but it'll happen.
   8660. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4304353)
I'm not saying it would be my preferred course of events by any means, but if it means the difference between myself and/or my family dying, I'd do it.

What, eat a ####### Hostess Twinkie? That shit's made from rat's blood, cow pus and formaldehyde.
   8661. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4304354)
And grenade launchers?

What about grenade launchers?

***
Yes, what's logical and cohesive, I again ask. And Joe doesn't get to go back to his pristince assertions. He should address all the objections he's avoided and evaded.

Which objections are those?
   8662. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4304355)
8656:

Well, #1 is to the poster who posted those instances in 8633. The rest can be considered at-large requests, to the poster or anyone else.
   8663. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:28 PM (#4304358)


Which objections are those? [Who am I? Where am I?]



No, I don't think I'm going to play along with that.
   8664. formerly dp Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4304366)
Well, I am assume a "pure" accident. I'm probably being naive, but if the SWAT kicks my door down and searches my house, they're not going to find anything.
Not until they sprinkle some crack on you.
   8665. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4304367)
No, I don't think I'm going to play along with that.

Well, that makes two of us. Last night, you (oddly) declared "case closed," but now you're claiming there are all sorts of unanswered questions. I'm not going to re-read 200 comments to find whatever it is that you're complaining about.
   8666. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4304368)
I may be naive but I don't know that this is true. Generally (to my very limited knowledge) the law is fairly friendly to people defending their home.


This is so naive to beg the question of your sanity. If you successfully defended your family from a no-knock raid you'd be sent to the electric chair as a cop-killer. More or less ever last time.

This thread is so ####### disturbing. Apparently the best way to deal with out of control militarist police state brutality randomly killing citizens is to lay down and take it up the ass instead.
   8667. DA Baracus Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4304369)
Well, #1 is to the poster who posted those instances in 8633.


I'm not following the point you are trying to make.
   8668. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4304371)
Twinkies Maker Hostess Going Out of Business, CEO Blames Union Strike


Also worth noting, from earlier this year:

Creditors of Hostess Brands Inc. said in court papers the company may have "manipulated" its executives' salaries higher in the months leading up to its Chapter 11 filing, in what the creditors called a possible effort by Hostess to "sidestep" Bankruptcy Code compensation provisions.

The committee representing Hostess's unsecured creditors alleges that information it has gathered suggests "the possibility" that the company converted a chunk of its top executives' pay from performance-based bonuses to salary, "at least in part to sidestep" rules designed to ensure that companies in bankruptcy aren't enticing their employees to stay on board with the promise of cash, according to documents filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in White Plains, N.Y.
[...]
The creditors said Hostess continues to pay the pre-bankruptcy salary increases, which aren't "contingent upon any aspect of the debtors' business performance or operations."

Last July, the court documents said, the compensation committee of Hostess's board approved an increase in then-chief executive Brian Driscoll's salary from to $2.55 million from around $750,000. The company had hired restructuring lawyers in March 2011, the creditors said, and filed for bankruptcy protection on Jan. 11.
[...]
Besides Mr. Driscoll, "other executives' salaries were increased by from 35% to 80%," the creditors said. The documents said that Mr. Driscoll subsequently renounced a portion of the increase while "other executives did not appear to have done so." Besides Mr. Driscoll, two other executives who saw their salaries increase have also left the company, according to the spokesman. -Rachel Feintzeig, The Wall Street Journal


Clearly, this is another company sunk by the greed of its rank-and-file workers.
   8669. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4304372)
Well, I am assume a "pure" accident. I'm probably being naive, but if the SWAT kicks my door down and searches my house, they're not going to find anything.


Not until they sprinkle some crack on you.


Exactly.
   8670. spike Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4304373)
A gun can be useful in self-defense provided you're a decent shot

Which is no small task with a handgun, and requires regular training to maintain. Th upside is that your attacker will usually be equally untrained. A highly succesful strategy if threatened by someone with a handgun, seriously, is to run. It's really f'ing hard to shoot a moving target with a pistol, or fire one accurately while moving, and the more distance the harder it gets.
   8671. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4304374)
This thread is so ####### disturbing. Apparently the best way to deal with out of control militarist police state brutality randomly killing citizens is to lay down and take it up the ass instead.

Since you've opposed gun rights in this and other prior discussions, what are your solutions? A petition? A letter to the editor?
   8672. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4304375)
8633. DA Baracus is your Eskimo brother


Are you saying you believe these ############# #####? The same cowardly peices of #### that are running around tasing kids and old ladies? I don't think there is any member of society I despise more than the power tripping cop. Absolute scum of the earth.

When you're awoken from a dead sleep in the peace and supposed sanctuary of your own home, I would think your first instinct would be to defend yourself and your family, especially if your wife screaming "don't shoot me" was the first voice you heard.

I was simplyfying in my mind the situation when I said I'd start shooting, but this is one of those situations where, as usual, the state gets the benefit of the doubt and the regular guy its bent over and reamed.
   8673. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4304378)
For the "why would you ever try to defend yourself against SWAT members" contingent, has it ever occurred to you that the people who tried and died didn't know they were SWAT teams?

Group of masked men smash into your home in the middle of the night and threaten your family. You really gonna stop and ask "wait, are you guys cops?"
   8674. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4304380)
What, eat a ####### Hostess Twinkie? That ####'s made from rat's blood, cow pus and formaldehyde.


Have you forgotten Andy? Not only am I conspiracy kook guy, I'm also organic gardener guy - I wouldn't eat a Twinkie if you paid me (up to a limit of course).
   8675. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4304383)
What about grenade launchers?
Your 8486 suggests that you're OK with some banning *some* weapons from the general populace, in addition to banning all weapons from criminals/mentally ill.

I'm assuming this turns into semantics over what constitutes "a sellout of Second Amendment principles".
   8676. DA Baracus Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4304384)
Are you saying you believe these ############# #####?


So do you think firing at a SWAT team will actually help you survive? Because I was replying to/underlining this (which I hope you understand is sarcasm):

When you are the victim of a "wrong address" no-knock SWAT team raid, I'm sure you pulling out a gun and firing is going to help you survive the incident.


Getting back to our original discussion, do you still claim that it is "almost routine for SWAT teams to bust into homes and kill someone" after the link you provided showed only 47 incidents in 27 years?
   8677. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4304385)
Group of masked men smash into your home in the middle of the night and threaten your family. You really gonna stop and ask "wait, are you guys cops?"


Particularly given that it's increasingly common for home invaders to impersonate police in order to try and gain the homeowners' compliance.

See here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.
   8678. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4304386)
FWIW, I can't own a handgun without a special collector's license in Canada, so if this hypothetical scenario were real, I'd have a 12-ga pump with 3.5" magnum slugs. Vest or no, you get hit with that and you're gonna be out of commission for awhile.

For the record, I do not own any firearms.
   8679. spike Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4304387)
I'd certainly say that the shooting of household pets with little to no pretext has become quite routine, and nearly as reprehensible
   8680. The Good Face Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4304389)
For the "why would you ever try to defend yourself against SWAT members" contingent, has it ever occurred to you that the people who tried and died didn't know they were SWAT teams?

Group of masked men smash into your home in the middle of the night and threaten your family. You really gonna stop and ask "wait, are you guys cops?"


I said as much earlier. It's foolish to shoot it out with a SWAT team, but how do you know you're facing a SWAT team when it's 2AM and people are smashing your place up? S'why no-knock raids should be abolished except in extremely rare circumstances.
   8681. spike Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4304390)
I'd have a 12-ga pump with 3.5" magnum slugs

"Overpenetration" is a really awful thing. You can pretty easily take out a neighbor or family member, and it reduces the tactical shotgun advantage of being able to deliver an incapacitating blow with imprecise aim.
   8682. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4304391)
Getting back to our original discussion, do you still claim that it is "almost routine for SWAT teams to bust into homes and kill someone" after the link you provided showed only 47 incidents in 27 years?


Does "someone" in these examples include household pets? Because that happens at least a couple times a week, every week.
   8683. formerly dp Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4304392)
Last July, the court documents said, the compensation committee of Hostess's board approved an increase in then-chief executive Brian Driscoll's salary from to $2.55 million from around $750,000.
Clearly, based on his successful stewardship of Hostess, he earned his salary increase, while the money-grubbing bakers and truck drivers very likely began sucking at their jobs, warranting the severe decrease in compensation.
   8684. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4304393)
It's not at all a sellout of Second Amendment principles to deny convicted murderers or the mentally deranged from possessing firearms.

What part of "without restriction" can't you understand?
   8685. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4304395)
DA, 47 incidents (of innocent victims don't forget, not intended targets) in 27 years could be qualified by the word "only" if we were talking about North Korea or Burma, but this is the USA here, come on. You know, land of the free, home of the brave?

I can't beleive that you are actually trying to marginalize how fundamentally wrong this is. One or two, or maybe even half a dozen incidents over that time period could excuse a rational person for believing they're just isolated incidents, but not 47. And that doesn't inlclude the 144 other times the wrong household was raided without somebody getting killed. The stats aren't broken down to show how many of those resulted in an injury to an innocent person, or the death of their dog(s).

Edited typo
   8686. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4304397)
What you do is lay down, obey orders and, at the first opportunity, call your lawyer who calls the press.

Or, what's more likely, cops a plea.

A lawyer can bargain for you, and can take a plea for you in some cases, with your permission - but a lawyer can't just say "Welp, you're taking this plea for resisting arrest just as soon as my check clears" and then make you do that. "Copping a plea" is a thing defendants do, not lawyers.
   8687. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:55 PM (#4304401)
What, eat a ####### Hostess Twinkie? That shit's made from rat's blood, cow pus and formaldehyde.

Have you forgotten Andy? Not only am I conspiracy kook guy, I'm also organic gardener guy - I wouldn't eat a Twinkie if you paid me (up to a limit of course).


Okay, you're forgiven for whatever you've done, which by now I've forgotten.

I'd say that the Hostess Company is a perfect metaphor for a large segment of modern day corporate America: An empire built on formaldehyde-preserved non-food, with executives who raid the company treasury in anticipation of bankruptcy while asking workers to take a pay cut. Where are the SWAT teams when they might really be put to good use?
   8688. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4304402)
Your 8486 suggests that you're OK with some banning *some* weapons from the general populace, in addition to banning all weapons from criminals/mentally ill.

I've said it explicitly. Putting aside the grenade launchers, there are no non-deranged people who believe the Second Amendment protects a person's right to possess, e.g., a nuclear weapon.

I'm assuming this turns into semantics over what constitutes "a sellout of Second Amendment principles".

Not really. It was never understood that, e.g., convicted murderers had a right to keep firearms in their jail cells. For Second Amendment supporters to "concede" such things doesn't put us on any slippery slope to a "sellout of Second Amendment principles."
   8689. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 16, 2012 at 01:58 PM (#4304405)
there are no non-deranged people who believe the Second Amendment protects a person's right to possess, e.g., a nuclear weapon.

Those people are deranged.
   8690. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 16, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4304411)
What part of "without restriction" can't you understand?
Those people are deranged.

It appears you're trying to do some shtick here but your aim seems to be a little off.
   8691. The Good Face Posted: November 16, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4304415)
I'd have a 12-ga pump with 3.5" magnum slugs. Vest or no, you get hit with that and you're gonna be out of commission for awhile.


Simmer down Rambo. A 12 gauge shotgun with 3.5" magnum slugs is overkill for a home defense weapon, unless you're defending the homestead from cave bears or space marines. Slugs are inaccurate, prone to overpenetration, and 3.5" magnum shells will probably break your eardrums (and shoulder) if fired indoors. Plus the recoil will hurt any chances of making accurate follow-up shots.

A 20 gauge with #2 buckshot and standard 2 3/4" shells is perfectly adequate. A 12 gauge using similar shells is fine too, but most people who don't shoot regularly find the 20 gauge to be easier to handle and shoot.
   8692. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4304418)
It's a good argument for public consumption, it plays well with most people. But the 2nd Amendment is about much more than self-defense.

It seems disingenuous to say that this is the argument that the GOP makes to convince the public, but it's not what most people who support Second Amendment rights believe. If this is the primary argument that resonates with the public, it's what most people believe.
   8693. spike Posted: November 16, 2012 at 02:10 PM (#4304420)
A 12 gauge using similar shells is fine too, but most people who don't shoot regularly find the 20 gauge to be easier to handle and shoot.

I have a Saiga AK style semi-auto 12 (count me as a lib who likes limited gun ownership). First two rounds are birdshot - they would make you seriously regret coming over uninvited, but not likely to be lethal, then the heavier stuff. Removes some of the threat of going overboard before fully knowing the situation, while permitting immediate response to stimuli.
   8694. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: November 16, 2012 at 02:14 PM (#4304424)
So besides grenade launchers and nukes, what other weapons can be banned without selling out second amendment principles?
   8695. bunyon Posted: November 16, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4304425)
For the "why would you ever try to defend yourself against SWAT members" contingent, has it ever occurred to you that the people who tried and died didn't know they were SWAT teams?

Of course. I'm not criticizing them. I'm criticizing the folks here who are saying that if the SWAT kicked down their door they'd take them on with a handgun. Obviously, if I'm awakened by my door coming down, I'll react the way these folks did. And I'll probably die.

Agreed all 'round on the shotgun as primary home defense. The wife has a 20 gauge and I have a 12. The basic plan in the event of home invasion is a meet up place that is easily defensible. We hunker down and allow the perps to take anything they want, except us. I can probably handle that - assuming I get to the meetup place. I know my shooting abilities and stalking them through the house is not going to work.

IF the SWAT kicks down your door, you're really just ######. I don't advocate taking it but I also don't advocate trying to win an unwinnable fight. You may not have a great chance to win in court but it is better than trying to hold them off with a pistol.
   8696. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4304427)
I just need a firearm suitable for home defense and light pistol-whipping.
   8697. formerly dp Posted: November 16, 2012 at 02:17 PM (#4304429)
What, eat a ####### Hostess Twinkie? That ####'s made from rat's blood, cow pus and formaldehyde.
A friend I was out with decided Sno Balls would be good drunk food. Proceeded to eat like 6 of them, and the whole time, kept insisting I was missing out on something really special. Sno Balls, IMO, out-repulsive Twinkies, which is not an easy thing to do.
==
what other weapons can be banned without selling out second amendment principles?
Lightsabers?
   8698. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4304430)
Simmer down Rambo.


I was kidding GF, society would have to look a lot different than it does now before we get there. That said, I've fired those rounds and its not bad on your shoulder if the butt is padded.
   8699. spike Posted: November 16, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4304431)
Obviously, if I'm awakened by my door coming down, I'll react the way these folks did. And I'll probably die.


When they kick in your front door, how you gonna come? With your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun?
   8700. DA Baracus Posted: November 16, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4304432)
Does "someone" in these examples include household pets? Because that happens at least a couple times a week, every week.


As much as it sucks to have a pet die, no, they don't count.

I can't beleive that you are actually trying to marginalize how fundamentally wrong this is.


I'm not, it's obviously horrible. It's just not as common as you'd like to think.
Page 87 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 85 86 87 88 89 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sheer Tim Foli
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDetermining Hall vote is no easy task | New York Post
(16 - 4:35pm, Dec 21)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(5185 - 4:23pm, Dec 21)
Last: starving to death with a full STEAGLES

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(767 - 4:19pm, Dec 21)
Last: smileyy

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(167 - 4:16pm, Dec 21)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogGetting ready to gamble on Jung-Ho Kang | FOX Sports
(6 - 4:13pm, Dec 21)
Last: smileyy

NewsblogJUNICHI TAZAWA & CULTURE OF DENIAL
(1 - 4:11pm, Dec 21)
Last: ellsbury my heart at wounded knee

NewsblogThe Yankees’ plan in case A-Rod can’t play at all
(19 - 4:09pm, Dec 21)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9199 - 4:08pm, Dec 21)
Last: AuntBea

NewsblogRuben Amaro Jr. says it would be best if Phillies move on from Ryan Howard
(44 - 4:02pm, Dec 21)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogMarty Noble's HOF Ballot
(32 - 3:55pm, Dec 21)
Last: Topher

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(338 - 3:50pm, Dec 21)
Last: Mefisto

NewsblogThe Jeff Jacobs HOF Ballot: Keep The Voting Serious And Fair
(47 - 3:23pm, Dec 21)
Last: cmd600

NewsblogSunday Notes: Low Strikes and Winter Deals | FanGraphs Baseball
(1 - 2:59pm, Dec 21)
Last: Walt Davis

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1960 Ballot
(11 - 2:37pm, Dec 21)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogA Salute to Sy Berger, From a Card-Carrying Fan - NYTimes.com
(4 - 2:25pm, Dec 21)
Last: eddieot

Page rendered in 0.6910 seconds
48 querie(s) executed