Michael Moore is a Moron.

[Sean Renaud]

Want to tell me what more gun regulation will accomplish?

Further restrict access to weapons. It's not like all those car regulations stop car theives, unlicensed (mostly illegal immigrant) drivers, joy riders or drunk drivers. There still limits to what's street legal and tons of safety measures you have pass to produce a care. (Though I'm at a bit of a loss as to what safety measure you'd put on a gun other than a safety.)

 

[HAL_9000]

Further restrict access to weapons. It's not like all those car regulations stop car theives, unlicensed (mostly illegal immigrant) drivers, joy riders or drunk drivers. There still limits to what's street legal and tons of safety measures you have pass to produce a care. (Though I'm at a bit of a loss as to what safety measure you'd put on a gun other than a safety.)

"Smart Guns" come to mind, where the weapon will only operate with it's registered user. Thumbprint scanner built in to the grip, if I remember correctly.

But anyway...

How do convicted felons who are already prohibited from possessing guns get them?

Maybe criminals will turn a new leaf and start respecting laws?

 

[Sean Renaud]

"Smart Guns" come to mind, where the weapon will only operate with it's registered user. Thumbprint scanner built in to the grip, if I remember correctly.

But anyway...

How do convicted felons who are already prohibited from possessing guns get them?

Maybe criminals will turn a new leaf and start respecting laws?

As someone who's worked with Fingerprints for years I'm highly skeptical of smart guns. The last thing I want is my gun not to fire because I'm too sweaty or not sweaty enough. (The machines work by reading the natural oil off your skin.)

In America there are simply too few restrictions. They buy them on the black market, they steal them, they go to states that are lax on controls. They do all sorts of things.

However it's plausible given what we know of human nature that sufficiently strict punishments (maybe not as draconian as Vette suggested earlier) coupled with a decrease in guns would lower guns on it's own. After all criminals are ultimately people and half the reason they want guns is because the other guy has one. If you can be reasonably sure the other guy doesn't have a knife your need for one decreases. It's not eliminated of course, as plenty of people will attest it's wise to bring a gun to a knife fight. Unless the penalty for bringing a gun to a knife fight is 10 years minimum and bringing a knife to a knife fight might get your out in 3. Arms races work the same way amongst criminals, cops and nations. You aren't safe if you aren't as well armed as your neighbors.

It's ultimately why I have a hard time really criticizing Iran wanting what they know Israel has. I'm not sure I'd feel safe in their shoes knowing that hypothetically the Taliban could sneak a weapon into Isreal an Iran gets erased. I'd want to be in a position where I could at least shout "WHOA! Not me lets talk before this sucks for everybody!"

 

[jeninflorida]

So I agree we should limit governmental controls, say "yea" conservatives!

Then why does the government want to have the power to execute criminals?

And limit the power for woman to choose to have or have not a child?

Y'all need to find a coherent philosophy. Even a dumb shit like me sees you are ass-backwards.

some criminals should be put to death...

things should be up to the women, not some asshat in DC. Also, democrats should be pro-life as most of these kids would have been future democrats as they would grow up poor and on welfare

 

[Sean Renaud]

some criminals should be put to death...

things should be up to the women, not some asshat in DC. Also, democrats should be pro-life as most of these kids would have been future democrats as they would grow up poor and on welfare

Because you don't have a right to life. You know what, you get a pass here, even though you're again being inconsistent cus I'm not against the death penalty. If anything I'm against the life penalty.

If you believed things should be up to women you'd vote Democrat, or at least libertarian.

Also Democrats would rather women be free than more people be Democrats.

 

[CHNOPS]

As someone who's worked with Fingerprints for years I'm highly skeptical of smart guns. The last thing I want is my gun not to fire because I'm too sweaty or not sweaty enough. (The machines work by reading the natural oil off your skin.)

Are you sure about this? First, I thought most biometric fingerprint scanners used capacitance, like touch screens (with ridges representing greater capacitance and valleys representing less). Also, I thought we'd moved past even that by now in fingerprinting.

Second, I thought smart guns were controversial because they were supposed to involve microchipping the owners or something. I didn't realize/think they were scanning fingerprints. A quick check on Wiki in the middle of writing this paragraph says as much, and also lists a bunch of other technologies, none of which involve fingerprints:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Gun

 

[Ramp1311]

Four dead, still low. And we could add up all the fatalities in China. It doesn't touch most decades for us. Why are these people using knives ramp? Is it cus they can't get them?



Except the Founding Fathers kinda failed to put such wording in the original government. Which likely wasn't accidental. Lets accept your theory for a second though. The Founding Fathers lived in an entirely different era under entirely different rules than we live by today. Just because someone wrote it down two and a third centuries ago doesn't mean we should stick by blindly.

You to your credit have a logic that goes beyond it. You're frightened of the world and given your ancestory I guess there is good reason for that. Not that the entire military of France was more than an annoyance and they were doing plenty of damage to England and I'm just not seeing people buying planes and tanks and most people when it comes down to it wouldn't support that.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Lord Acton

No truer words have been spoken. I am not afraid of goevernments because of my ancestory. I am wary of governments because of history. Governments are a necessary evil, but like everything they must be controlled.

You are arguing that gun control would reduce the random acts of killing and fatalities caused by that action (and that is true.) However gun control does not prevent the wholesale slaughter of people, that out of control governments tend to do, when they have an unarmed population. Yes, less people were killed by the knife in China, but whole villages with thousands of people have been killed by the Chinese government because they had an unarmed population. If you look throughout history, you will see that it happens everywhere in that setting (and still does to this day)

Many think that violent crimes would be reduced, and that would be true. However, if you take the sum of all the violet crimes committed throughout history, I doubt it would come close to the violet crimes one out of control government has done to it's population (just look at the out of control governments in the world now, and how many people have been slaughter.)

I am against gun control because of those infrequent times that a government does go out of control. They are far more damaging, killing and maiming their population(s). I feel safer knowing that the private citizen has protection against not only the common criminal but the government as well.

While it has been over 200+ years since the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, and times have indeed changed, the human makeup has not changed in well over 20,000+ years.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Are you sure about this? First, I thought most biometric fingerprint scanners used capacitance, like touch screens (with ridges representing greater capacitance and valleys representing less). Also, I thought we'd moved past even that by now in fingerprinting.

Second, I thought smart guns were controversial because they were supposed to involve microchipping the owners or something. I didn't realize/think they were scanning fingerprints. A quick check on Wiki in the middle of writing this paragraph says as much, and also lists a bunch of other technologies, none of which involve fingerprints:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Gun

I'm completely certain I know how fingerprinting works. But since the machines we're discussing don't use fingerprinting it's neither here nor there at the moment.

My initial feeling about each of the techs though.

Mossburg: I can't sleep in rings and I prefer not to work in rings. I would likely hold off on this.

New Jersey: Sounds like something that could get a false read if you were tired, startled or any number of things that adjusted your grip.

Colt: While I can sleep and work in a bracelet ultimately the same criticism as Mossburg.

Triggersmart: I'm not clear on how this works other than radio signals.

BIOMAC: Overall sounds like the best option out there.

I'd at least be willing to explore any of these technologies further. My main complaint about each is personally I'd rather not have a gun than have a gun that won't fire. It's something my father taught me about escalating a situation. Just like don't ever pull a gun on someone you don't intend to kill. If the tech proves reliable I'd be more than willing to discuss any of them on whatever levels people thought were appropriate.

 

[Ramp1311]

^^^^Weapons-grade derp.



Sure you are.

lol... your thinking is a mile wide and an inch deep.

May I perhaps suggest you actually do some research and think before posting again......

 

[CHNOPS]

I'm completely certain I know how fingerprinting works.

Can you tell me more about the "oils" aspect? I'm googling and can't find it. I do find references to various types of capacitance, plus shifts to IR, xray, and the like.

(Not challenging, just want/am interesting in the info.)

 

[Sean Renaud]

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Lord Acton

A couple things. Power corrupts is mostly something people say. More importantly if your goal is diffuse power you're voting for the WRONG party.

No truer words have been spoken. I am not afraid of goevernments because of my ancestory. I am wary of governments because of history. Governments are a necessary evil, but like everything they must be controlled.

Plenty of truer words have been spoken. You aren't wary because of history. If you were you'd have a different argument. As I already demonstrated there have been dozens of massacres and only seven are countries that were actively disarmed. Of those only two were (Stalin and debatably Hitler) were preceeded by disarming the population. As you've rightly mentioned of the other five they'd been disarmed for so long that any link is spurious at best.

You are arguing that gun control would reduce the random acts of killing and fatalities caused by that action (and that is true.) However gun control does not prevent the wholesale slaughter of people, that out of control governments tend to do, when they have an unarmed population. Yes, less people were killed by the knife in China, but whole villages with thousands of people have been killed by the Chinese government because they had an unarmed population. If you look throughout history, you will see that it happens everywhere in that setting (and still does to this day)

Governments however aren't any more likely to slaughter unarmed populations than armed ones. This is where you're simply making up facts as you go along. I've provided links and figures, you haven't because they don't fit your narrative. Armed or unarmed, if your government is sick and tired of you, you die. It's just that simple. That is what history proves. Even to this day you don't find a lot of people claiming that the US civilians would be more than a speed bump if the military were turned on us and every argument is taking into acount that our military would never do that.

Many think that violent crimes would be reduced, and that would be true. However, if you take the sum of all the violet crimes committed throughout history, I doubt it would come close to the violet crimes one out of control government has done to it's population (just look at the out of control governments in the world now, and how many people have been slaughter.)

I'm certain that it does. That's just a stupid assertion. Besides I can just turn that one back and say that I can all but prove that the number of lives both saved and made possible because of government dwarf the lives lost to out of control governments.

I am against gun control because of those infrequent times that a government does go out of control. They are far more damaging, killing and maiming their population(s). I feel safer knowing that the private citizen has protection against not only the common criminal but the government as well.

Two things. First governments go out of control infrequently enough that you really have much more to fear from your neighbors than you do from an out of control government. They don't even need to be violent, just sufficiently stupid. If you must live your life in fear, fear the drunk driver. Fear the swimming pool, if you're a minority in New York fear the cops.

Something you pointed out earlier that I can't believe I didn't catch. Nazi Germany wasn't a government out of control. The Jews were a persecuted minority people that nobody in Europe gave two shits about and that's putting it nicely. It's possible that something similar could happen in the US but it won't matter because even the most pro-gun person out there seems to support taking guns from criminals and since our persucuted minority are called Mexicans. . .shhhhh. A ten year Depression with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh screaming they took your jobs, they are the reason you're poor (sound remotely familiar?) could easily lead to them being round up and they'd stand the same chance that the Jews in Germany stood. NONE.

While it has been over 200+ years since the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, and times have indeed changed, the human makeup has not changed in well over 20,000+ years.

But our technology has changed a great deal. Our priorities have changed a great deal. Our lives have changed a great deal.

Let me ask you something. Should protesters be allowed to block a major freeway?

Also encase you didn't catch it the first billion times I've said it, I'm not pro-gun control. I think the amount of lives we lose each year is well within the acceptable parameters. If someone can find some non-obtrusive ways to lower them I'm all for it. My first step would be mando-gun classes in K-12 and just like I say about sex ed NO you don't get a choice. You live in a society you make sacrifices to said society. I think if people understood guns at the very least we could cut into the accidental deaths significantly. You know if even a Kintergartner understood you don't point a gun at anybody, not even if you think it's unloaded, not even if you unloaded it yourself, not ever unless you plan to kill that person. Bring back those PSAs while we're at it. If Sonic the Hedgehog could tell my generation that if someone tries to touch your bathroom area go tell a parent surely Ben 10 can take a moment to say guns aren't toys.

I just tire of these arguments about how if this woman had a gun she wouldn't have been raped. When the fact is your so likely to be raped by friends and family that frankly if women feel so unsafe around their uncles that they're packing guns we got a bigger problem.

Or if people X had kept their weapons they wouldn't have been slaughtered. We're currently watching multiple nations that first of all didn't have effective gun control (It may very well have existed but any country that has terrorist training camps is doing a bad job of keeping guns from it's citizens regardless of what's written on the books.) and even with international backing to keep the government from coming down full bore they are barely accomplishing stand stills and if the UN weren't there. . .yeah. SLAUGHTER.

Or if you take away guns people will just find a way. While it's true that SOME will the majority simply won't or can't. I know you, just like every other pro-gun poster can make machine guns in your garage with PVC pipe, binoculars and a dildo and the only reason you don't hold the high score for most dead in a single slaughter is cus you don't feel like it. Most of us aren't that talented though.

I could come up with at least a few dozen more since they don't really change much but rarely do people on the Right flat out say that this is acceptable. Just like to go back to drunk drivers we could make a law demanding that all cars come with built in breathalyzers and it would undoubtedly save lives (even if probably kept some people from getting to work because of their mouth wash) but as high as the number is it's within acceptable parameters.

 

[Ramp1311]

I understand where your mind is, however I think that you are taking it to an extreme.

This statement below is wrong, becausee you can not prove it:

"Governments however aren't any more likely to slaughter unarmed populations than armed ones. This is where you're simply making up facts as you go along. I've provided links and figures, you haven't because they don't fit your narrative. Armed or unarmed, if your government is sick and tired of you, you die. It's just that simple. That is what history proves. Even to this day you don't find a lot of people claiming that the US civilians would be more than a speed bump if the military were turned on us and every argument is taking into acount that our military would never do that."


Governments do think twice about attacking armed populations. That is just common sense. Look at it this way, are you more likely to break into a neighbor's house that you know is armed or unarmed. It is just common sense.

I do not have any figures to link, because you can not prove a negative. However, the vast majority of populations that were attacked by their own governments were unarmed. That has been proven. In fact, provide me a link that shows a fully armed population that has been attacked by it's government ever in history (and do not say the south in the Civil War, most of them were farmers who just wanted to be left alone and tried to invoke the
10th amendment)

Yes, there are other dangers in the world, and it is just prudent to be wary about all of them. However going to an extreme about any of them is just as bad.

Power corrupts, period. People in power want to retain that power, that is human nature.

Governments have a function in a civilized society, but they must be limited. Many well educated people realize and understand that fact, as the founding fathers are not alone in their beliefs before and after they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

[jeninflorida]

You have to remember, SeanR spends over 18 hours a day here on GB

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sorry early posters, I stepped away and fucked up the format. MY BUST.

I understand where your mind is, however I think that you are taking it to an extreme.

It is taken to an extreme. If you can't argue against a logical extreme how can you argue the logical center? I haven't asked you once why Britney Spears shouldn't be allowed access to ICBM's even though that's her Constitutional Right. I haven't asked you why felons shouldn't be allowed guns, even though that's their Constitutional Right. I haven't asked you where rights come from because if the government DOESN'T give them they are either inherent or come from God and. . .well nothing is inherent and if they come from God if you think Iran doesn't deserve to have nukes then you think you know better than GOD. I do by the way know better than God. And Yoda. And Gandalf. And Master Splinter. In fact not a single fictional character knows more than me. (which for the record doesn't mean you can't glean important philosophical answers from them) What's your excuse?

This statement below is wrong, becausee you can not prove it:
Sean Renaud
"Governments however aren't any more likely to slaughter unarmed populations than armed ones. This is where you're simply making up facts as you go along. I've provided links and figures, you haven't because they don't fit your narrative. Armed or unarmed, if your government is sick and tired of you, you die. It's just that simple. That is what history proves. Even to this day you don't find a lot of people claiming that the US civilians would be more than a speed bump if the military were turned on us and every argument is taking into acount that our military would never do that."

The problem being I already did. Your refusal to accept the dozens of cases of ethnic cleansing in various countries and the low frequency of them being unarmed doesn't mean it's not a fact. It means you refuse to believe it.

Governments do think twice about attacking armed populations. That is just common sense. Look at it this way, are you more likely to break into a neighbor's house that you know is armed or unarmed. It is just common sense.

See that's the thing, nothing a civilian can buy qualifies as ARMED if I'm the government. I don't think twice about breaking into a neighbor house if I know he's a swordsmith and I've got a shotgun. Likewise I don't think twice about breaking into a man's house with anything commercially available when I've got riot gear, training, and a team.

I do not have any figures to link, because you can not prove a negative. However, the vast majority of populations that were attacked by their own governments were unarmed. That has been proven. In fact, provide me a link that shows a fully armed population that has been attacked by it's government ever in history (and do not say the south in the Civil War, most of them were farmers who just wanted to be left alone and tried to invoke the
10th amendment)

No, sorry it's not a fact. It's something you want very badly to be true but doesn't have any basis. Though nice try on the switch to a fully armed population. Other than Switzerland no such society exists and very few every existed. What percentage and quality of weapon determines fully armed?

Yes, there are other dangers in the world, and it is just prudent to be wary about all of them. However going to an extreme about any of them is just as bad.

No, it's really not prudent to be worried overmuch about any of them but you should definitely scale them by how likely they are to happen to you or around you. Which is the point. Go ahead, be a doomsday prepper, stock pile guns to the fucking ceiling.

Power corrupts, period. People in power want to retain that power, that is human nature.

According to legend. Facts however don't bear this out in one direction or the other. Not that power is actually defined in this particular statement which is part of why it's worthless.

Just for the record though I don't EVER want to see you around defending the 1%. Not with a philosophy of power corrupts when economic power means and if it hasn't always meant (at many points they've been so intertwined as to be impossible to separate) more than military power that if a 1% as rich as ours isn't absolutely corrupt by YOUR philosophy (not mine, I don't think by and large they are corrupt anymore than the middle and lower class) then nothing is.

Governments have a function in a civilized society, but they must be limited. Many well educated people realize and understand that fact, as the founding fathers are not alone in their beliefs before and after they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Limited, in this context is meaningless. Limited to what, by who's say so and for what reasons?

I notice you didn't answer my questions. Of course you won't. It's one of the interesting things about every single conservative on this site. When asked a direct question they simply can't. I suspect it's because some of them don't know why they believe what they believe and the other half don't really believe what they say.

I'd respect you a lot if you'd simply say that the amount of lives we lose each year to guns are worth the being able to defend ourselves when the government tries to take over. I don't think the government is going to take over, certainly not in my life time. But I wouldn't take that opportunity, slim to none though it might be, from my great grand kids for all the random bullshit we suffer.

You have to remember, SeanR spends over 18 hours a day here on GB

That's the benefit and curse of being a person who's job involves working behind a computer.

 

[Busybody]

by all means

lets post the pics of the dead kids


as well as the PICS OF THESE ABORTED KIDS


http://www.obbcelkhart.com/images/AbortionPhotosAftermath_1.jpg

 

[kbate]

I don't know what state you live in. Memory suggests Florida, so I'm going to go with it.

You could have at least taken the time to google up the truth instead of posting a false comparison.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Can you tell me more about the "oils" aspect? I'm googling and can't find it. I do find references to various types of capacitance, plus shifts to IR, xray, and the like.

(Not challenging, just want/am interesting in the info.)

Sorry missed this.

You probably can't google it since it's more a matter of learning as you go. I don't really know what to tell you that I haven't already said though.

 

[richard_daily]

No. They're sensationalists. They almost exclusively show pictures of partial birth abortions which make up a tiny fraction of all abortions.

Which is very similar in style to what Michael Moore is doing here.

 

[richard_daily]

Further restrict access to weapons. It's not like all those car regulations stop car theives, unlicensed (mostly illegal immigrant) drivers, joy riders or drunk drivers. There still limits to what's street legal and tons of safety measures you have pass to produce a care. (Though I'm at a bit of a loss as to what safety measure you'd put on a gun other than a safety.)

Should it be illegal to own a BMW, porsch, or any other car that is capable of going over the speed limit?

 

[richard_daily]

Governments however aren't any more likely to slaughter unarmed populations than armed ones. This is where you're simply making up facts as you go along. I've provided links and figures, you haven't because they don't fit your narrative. Armed or unarmed, if your government is sick and tired of you, you die. It's just that simple. That is what history proves. Even to this day you don't find a lot of people claiming that the US civilians would be more than a speed bump if the military were turned on us and every argument is taking into acount that our military would never do that.

How successful do you think the insurgents in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Philippines, etc would have been against US forces if they had been unarmed?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Which is very similar in style to what Michael Moore is doing here.

It really isn't. Bullet holes look like bullet holes regardless of the subject. 90% of abortions don't look like anything.

 

[Ramp1311]

Sean Renaud,

I did answer your questions, you seem to not understand the answers. I think you over rationalize your answers, and miss the point(s). Ah well, I never expected to change your mind. Suffice to say that we have different views on some important issues in the world, hopefully neither of us will have to be tested on them.

Have a good night my friend....

 

[RobDownSouth]

You could have at least taken the time to google up the truth instead of posting a false comparison.

Professional scold kbate offers up yet another steaming helping of smug, bitchy meta-commentary.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm just going to assume that I missed this cus I was busy.

Which is very similar in style to what Michael Moore is doing here.

Not really Presenting the facts isn't sensationalist.

Should it be illegal to own a BMW, porsch, or any other car that is capable of going over the speed limit?

We can discuss these points later, currently however it is illegal to produce a car without seat belts or air bags and illegal to operate a car without wearing at seat belt.

 

[Byron In Exile]

perhaps he believes you people DO need to see it - though i don't think pictures will do any good; too many are inured to images of graphic suffering and waste.

Or perhaps he feels that his only chance is a fallacious Appeal to Emotion.