Post #1,389
7/11/01 12:47:49 AM
|
Let us parse, despite the 90\ufffd polaroid filter pair:
My original post, ANNOTATED:
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=861|http://z.iwethey.or...ontentid=861]
Funny how..
The major incitement for fuckin *Anyone* to pay the slightest attention to the virtually Zero-Enforcement "Self"-policing (!) traditional AMA performance:
NOTE 1: My first complaint is about the general obliviousness of, at least all media - to the 'stat-facts' claimed by the NRA rep - which may indeed be *unmassaged* re the 'Doctor deaths': but needs corroboration *next*: where he throws in that 'number' about "how many crimes were prevented by armed citizens", a much more clearly debatable assertion: THAT kind of 'number' is no more credible from the 'NRA' than is a number about server 'quality' by M$ - not without external corroboration, it isn't.
Is when the Chief Medical Corporation Officer notices how many Drs are injuring their hips from sliding on the blood on floors of most er "city" ORs - because of all them guns er 'protectin* the peepul'.
NOTE 2: To the NRA-oriented, it was impermissible? for this Doctor to even comment upon the growing number of gunshot wounds his colleagues are treating? [which is a DIFFERENT MATTER\ufffd than: the Doctor's opinion about - what we might do to reduce those bloody ER floors.] On THAT you are bound to differ with his opinion. I remember no comment about the Doctor's basic complaint: growing bloody patients - just comments on how stupid the Dr. is! imagining it has anything to do with there being lots of guns everywhere.
*Stat-Facts o'course, brought by the er Gun Owners Foundation's bureau of comfy number massaging... Section of: Unbiased Interpolation.
NOTE 3: Excess hyperbole - guilty: the "doctor killings" numbers need not have been massaged. The "how many armed folk preserved justice?" numbers are indeed as stated above.
[??]
Hey: this farce has been institutionalized longer than slavery was - and it don't seem to make no matter much - fuck the victims. Unless maybe, One More Time in chorus y'hear:
NOTE 4: Bad referent - guilty. "Which farce" - by which I meant the utter unaccountability of the medical establishment, whose victims don't count - for the immunity granted to all but the most egregious malpractice, since ~ civil war times. You are correct that - you could infer that I meant: the "farce" has been our EZ tolerance of gun proliferation everywhere. I apologize for its imprecision. That last is no farce, whatever else it means.
They Gonna Steal Our Guns !!!
NOTE 5: I will reiterate - YES! that fear was what prompted the person to mention the record of MDs AT ALL. And in the context only of a Gun-defense, did he pay any attention to the Doctor stats = a ploy (if also a correctly founded ploy) ABOUT GUNS. Not remotely any plea for reform of the AMA policies. That omission I deem, leads to another inference one could draw; and every speech implies many things:
""It was 'wrong' to complain about the blood and to suggest remedies! While it is also 'wrong' for you to mispractice as much as you do, at least *we* won't suggest any remedies!"" Or do you see the root of that inference at all?
Gotta Love Murican priorities...
NOTE 6: Priorities: 1-Save the guns. Save the patients? not 2- or 3- hardly a concern, certainly not a focus of his rhetoric in link!
Ashton armed t'the teeth with e coli against th next shit-eatin dog
Anyway - you are right that my sloppy phrasing above, muddied the focus of my dudgeon. I also believe that the NRA rep missed an excellent platform for turning-away wrath BY addressing the sorry AMA record, as a concerned citizen FIRST! a Gun-partisan only SECOND. It is, after all *a rather important factoid*. Isn't it ???
THEN: he can make his necessary pitch that "guns don't kill people.. people.." and other reasons why - there can never be too many guns among Free Citizens, and stuff. (This gives at least the appearance that - he might give a fuck about some other aspect of Murican life than - his right to arm bears.)
I'd say the NRA can use all the goodwill it can muster, not only from Drs. But then, they didn't hire me as a PR consultant.
You aim for your Eden and I'll take another road, thanks. The topic of 'our direction as a society' isn't likely to go away any time soon. And that National Town Meeting on a variety of topics - just never seems to happen.. did you notice?
We two can't even agree if the patient is ill! - so I doubt we share much similarity of imaginings about what remedies are in order next.
Can't be helped. Different glasses. Different refractive index, thus vision.
Ashton
|
Post #1,392
7/11/01 1:18:53 AM
|
180 Degrees apart.
You're not even paying attention.
My first complaint is about the general obliviousness of, at least all media - to the 'stat-facts' claimed by the NRA rep
EARTH TO ASHTON: THE NRA DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
I'VE POINTED THIS OUT MORE THAN ONCE.
THAT kind of 'number' is no more credible from the 'NRA' than is a number about server 'quality' by M$ - not without external corroboration, it isn't.
Fine. Corroborate it. ITS NOT FROM THE NRA.
because of all them guns er 'protectin* the peepul'.
Ashton: This is a lie.
Lie. Falsehood. Untooth. Summoning Godwin, I smite thee with the Big Lie. That's the only thing that makes sense for you to keep BABBLING on the same, refuted, point that doesn't have anything to do with this.
You've come up with this image of the US as a gun-battling place. Nevermind that's the opposite. That these shootings are going up (they're not). You've done NOTHING but insult, denegrate, belittle.
And you can't even keep straight who's involved.
To the NRA-oriented, it was impermissible? for this Doctor to even comment upon the growing number of gunshot wounds his colleagues are treating?
Comment upon? Ashton, did you READ the link?
IT WAS HIS WHOLE SPEECH.
If you can't be bothered with learning what the issue is (fer instance, that the NRA ain't involved with this), can you at least not keep posting after its pointed out 2 or 3 times?
I *detest* willful ignorance. I hate it in "rednecks". I hate it in "liberals". I hate it in "conservatives". So no, I don't like it now. I've explained, time and time again, and you just blithely ignore it and keep on saying what you were falsely saying.
*WHAT* can be the EXCUSE for that? (The NRA isn't involved, Ash. Explain how you don't know that by now).
just comments on how stupid the Dr. is! imagining it has anything to do with there being lots of guns everywhere.
AGAIN: This is a doctor. He's the president of the AMA. Who's calling for restrictive gun laws. Who spent a *whole speech* of his initial speech - let me stop and TRY AGAIN to get this across. THIS WASN'T A COMMENT. THIS WAS A WHOLE SPEECH.
Whole speech. Not a comment.
A misinformed, badly researched speech. I *expect* better from doctors. Perhaps I'm silly.
So.. You can't remember this is the Libertarian Party replying (using facts and stats from the FBI, among others). Can't remember its the whole speech.
You're distorting the whole argument, just so you can keep going on about some artificial construct in your head *that has no basis in reality, history, or the likely future*.
*Stat-Facts o'course, brought by the er Gun Owners Foundation's bureau of comfy number massaging... Section of: Unbiased Interpolation.
Ash.... Don't you DARE even TRY and attack anybody else's numbers whent hey're using KELLERMAN.
If you don't know why - then learn. Don't post, learn.
You are correct that - you could infer that I meant: the "farce" has been our EZ tolerance of gun proliferation everywhere.
Good call. I did until I read the explanation. :)
Ashton: have you noticed yet that the problem isn't the tolerance of guns, its the restriction of them from the people who need them? Ie - the law abiding citizens?
They Gonna Steal Our Guns !!!
WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?
Look at *your replies* in this thread. *You're trying to steal my guns!*
Its explicit - not even implicit!
YES! that fear was what prompted the person to mention the record of MDs AT ALL. And in the context only of a Gun-defense, did he pay any attention to the Doctor stats = a ploy (if also a correctly founded ploy) ABOUT GUNS.
Because that's what he spent his whole speech talking about.
If he'd talked about the number of cases of cancer caused by corn ingestion, the corn farmers would have been doing the comparison.
He picked the venue, and YOU'RE STILL BLAMING THE GUN OWNERS.
What was that about somehow being paranoid?
Not remotely any plea for reform of the AMA policies. That omission I deem, leads to another inference one could draw; and every speech implies many things:
Yes, the original (Libertarian) speaker suggested maybe he should worry about his own house.
That was the purpose of the comparitive statistics.
I also believe that the NRA rep missed an excellent platform for turning-away wrath BY addressing the sorry AMA record, as a concerned citizen FIRST! a Gun-partisan only SECOND. It is, after all *a rather important factoid*. Isn't it ???
Ashton. 22 people died last night. Is that important?
You can't tell me that. Until you know more. Were they in one building? In a city? Across China? Old age?
AND IT WASN'T THE NRA.
Do you realise you've been brainwashed by this meedja you constantly harp about?
The NRA doesn't even DO THAT MUCH with legislation. Its less than 25% of their efforts (and that only as the gun-grabbers have ramped up). GOA and other organizations were formed because the NRA *WASN'T AND ISN'T* set up for it.
But you have a PATHOLOGICAL hatred of the NRA. Why, I don't know. Because they don't fit into your utopia, I guess, where everybody gets along with everybody, and there's no conflict.
But neither does anybody else.
(This gives at least the appearance that - he might give a fuck about some other aspect of Murican life than - his right to arm bears.)
When the entire point of the speech was to outlaw/legistlate/fritter away that right, WHAT ELSE WOULD HAVE MADE SENSE?
Ashton, had that AMA guy stood up, and gone on about Cameras on streets, and how they should be put in, for his whole speech... the replies would be BASED ON THE NUMBERS he used, and ON HIS TOPIC.
Can't be helped. Different glasses. Different refractive index, thus vision.
Right now, no. Because your glasses are made of opaque glass. But you won't believe that the image painted on them isn't the real one.
You aim for your Eden and I'll take another road, thanks
I answered you before. You've got a problem with equality, and trust.
My Eden is the ability to trust my fellow man, not just the ones weaker and slower than me.
Your Eden is the eden of the T-rex. As long as you're the biggest, strongest, meanest, fastest - *you* can trust anybody.
But who can trust you?
Addison
|
Post #1,398
7/11/01 7:26:20 AM
|
Uhh...
Addison writes: You've come up with this image of the US as a gun-battling place. Nevermind that's the opposite. Uh, no, it's not. Not "the opposite", I mean. According to all statistics I've ever seen or heard, the USA *is* pretty much "a gun-battling place".
Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #1,403
7/11/01 8:39:18 AM
|
yup, dont see many fist fights
that loadmouth big guy walks a little small in places like texas nd the bronx cause the little guy who looks funny will take a punch then shoot you dead. Yup. the great equalizer. thanx, bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|
Post #1,408
7/11/01 9:32:20 AM
|
Re: Uhh...
Uh, no, it's not. Not "the opposite", I mean.
According to all statistics I've ever seen or heard, the USA *is* pretty much "a gun-battling place".
Statistics? Or TV shows?
Guns are rarely used, even in the US. Very rarely. (rarely is a relative term, yes, they're used more than in say, Sweden) And their rates of use are going DOWN. Not up. Down.
This isn't the popular image projected by the media, I realise.
There's not a showdown on Every Main Street, Every Day, as Ashton portrays, nor does the NRA (or anybody else) advocate one.
Addison
|
Post #1,534
7/11/01 7:12:49 PM
|
Well Addison, you make your points here well enough that,
I'll concede a bit more of the 'appropriateness' of the gun-partisan's prioritizing; it's likely true that - had the CIEIO of Corp-Med lambasted the Tampa Surveillance Afficionados instead -
A) there would have been no putative cause - for unearthing the sorry AMA-stats on -at best- Unnecesary deaths and injuries due directly to: the proliferation of Incompetent Doctors within the body of Doctors.
B) there would have been no tie-in either; surveillance VS AMA Incompetence. It would have been a Red Herring (however a legitimate Herring, elsewhere)
As to my 'hatred' of the NRA. For the same reasons you despise such rednecks, liberals or conservatives - who immediately counter *any* earnest efforts to control some of the Collateral Damage *caused by* the ready-availability of ___ (Anything! potentially harmful, not Just Guns.. or Gins! for that matter)
Yes, I despise One-Note-Johnnys.
Always it has been within the purview of the NRA or the other orgs to Face-Up to: precisely! the growing er "issue" of the blood-slippery ORs - a daily phenom in any large Murican city, and to attempt to seek YES! *innovative* New Ways (!!) for preserving BOTH
the right to maintain an armed Militia *AND* fearlessly and non-BS-edly ALSO face the consequences of gun proliferation to such an extent that: literally ANYONE may easily obtain one, no matter what nominal 'laws' are on the books - most of these: to make some group or pol 'feel good about themselves\ufffd' in the passing of YAN toothless 'restraint'.
I will salute! your NRA when it er *bites THAT bullet*, ceases the preaching to converted doubletalk - and begins by acknowledging that *gun ownership is the essence of a TWO-edged sword* and it is NOT simply about: "some God-given inalienable Right of... yada yada". Because that last: just is all we mainly HEAR from these dudes
over and over and over (Thanks, Meerkat!)
Yes too: no matter what I think, imagine is possible if.. we Want it enough: in Murica Guns R Us. For the foreseeable. Yet to make their 'possession' a main focus of a 'life' is IMhO, the description of a narrowly circumscribed 'life', in the Grand Scheme o'Things available to homo-sap mentation.
Alas, the paranoid style of Murican politics nearly guarantees that.. the NRA-folk and their opponents - shall continue focussing upon the extremes -- precisely as the
Right-to-Life (but let's execute them older folk real Quick, before their DNA tests come up) VS the Right-to-Choose (let's have an abortion clinic available at recess for the 12 year olds) -- these *&%*&$ Caricatures! ARE the way Muricans deal with problems that cannot yield to simplistic slogans, as solutions.
We ever choose the stupid extreme slogan! and then emote about it, not for the duration of a political campaign (lasting interminably, if it's for Prez) -- but we do this forever. Exclusively (except in small never-media-reported! sane groups, that is).
We *were* smarter than this. The Federalist Papers were bloody serialized! in newspapers! Then, when the Constitution et al were nascent, debatable and, were debated!
Too bad, Addison - a pox on Both the houses: the One-Note-NRA\ufffd AND Let's-Confiscate-All Guns\ufffd. Neither POV is worth a bucket of warm spit (though we see that quote of John Nance Garner, re the Veep position, was in error: we now have a Veep running a Puppet)
So much for even *my* slogans about slogans about.. ;-)
Ashton Recipe for Just Plain Goodness\ufffd GPL'd
Give Everyone a gun. Ration *EVERY* bullet\ufffd. Test every 'Doctor' - in Geneva, far enough away from er local persuasion. Break up every massive News Monopoly to original varied components. Billy n'Bally in public Stocks for One Week - as example for every Corp. Suit and Suite. (for a start, that is)
_____ (other Rules to Live By: available in the Professional version, $50)
|
Post #1,634
7/12/01 7:27:58 PM
|
Thank you. Let me try to make at least one more.
Primarily: You've got to stop complaining about "Meedja" and "Murican peeple" if you're going to be part of them (or be hypocritical). As to my 'hatred' of the NRA. For the same reasons you despise such rednecks, liberals or conservatives - who immediately counter *any* earnest efforts to control some of the Collateral Damage *caused by* the ready-availability of ___ (Anything! potentially harmful, not Just Guns.. or Gins! for that matter) Yes, I despise One-Note-Johnnys. The "meedja" has been saying that. The NRA is *not* a "one note Johnny". Lobbying and gun laws are a small FRACTION of what they do. But the *US MEDIA* says that's all they say. So you've allowed yourself to be swayed by what you make fun of - bought into the popular viewing of the NRA as "Nuts". (BTW, they spent more time and effort with Police Training courses than they do with lobbying, at least last time I saw the stats). And I'll reference a comment you made on ezboard: fringe groups like the Aryan NRA Brotherhood Now, I don't know if you were making a "new" fringe group or not. But in any event, putting the two of them together is foul, in both the out of bounds and the smell sense of the word. You keep DOING that. (and you complain about "one note johnnies" despite the NRA's being completely, utterly silent in this scene). The NRA, who, by the way, are among the STRONGEST proponents of freedom, equality, and legallity want nothing to do with any white supremacist groups. Insinuating that they are one and the same hurts *your* case, and your ability to claim that you've really thought things through. So yes, you've bought into a "meedja myth" - and are perpetuating it. Not unusual, people do that all the time. I have to say it irks me when they then bitch a storm up about the unthinking masses who regurgitate what the "meedja" says. Always it has been within the purview of the NRA or the other orgs to Face-Up to: precisely! the growing er "issue" of the blood-slippery ORs - a daily phenom in any large Murican city, and to attempt to seek YES! *innovative* New Ways (!!) for preserving BOTH the right to maintain an armed Militia *AND* fearlessly and non-BS-edly ALSO face the consequences of gun proliferation to such an extent that: literally ANYONE may easily obtain one, no matter what nominal 'laws' are on the books Ashton, the NRA has been the *leading* proponent of laws to get illegal guns off the street. To require safe handling of weapons. They're not against "any" law that defines guns. (Buying that is more "meedja bad mojo"). But often they get painted as such, due to their opposition of BAD LAW that's spun as good. The NRA opposed legislation (for one example) to outlaw "cop killer bullets" (as it was called at the time, after all, who's going to oppose laws to "protect police officers"?). Because the laws were badly worded. Because they were open to wide interpretation. Several defined *any* projectile that could penetrate an "undershirt" vest as "armor-piercing"... and that includes *NAIL GUNS*. Much less *every deer rifle in the world*. Not to mention these laws are written by these same politicians you like to lamblast for their venality and stupidity... so if they want to outlaw guns they suddenly are Nobel candidates? Coating a bullet with Teflon (R) (TM) is illegal. Why? Because of the "cop killer buller" hysteria. Someone produced "Teflon-coated" bullets, 60 minutes ran a story. The point that escaped most of the viewing audience, and most of the politicians was that the reason these rounds sliced through body armor *wasn't* the "teflon coating". It was the fact the projectiles were non-deforming STEEL. The teflon allowed them to "slip" down the barrel of the gun - without ripping the rifling out of the barrel. (previous weapons, mainly anti-tank, that use steel projectiles have VERY short barrel lives). Lead and copper are used currently, and they do adequately, but it would be better to use thse same tech to coat THEM. And guess who's affected by this restriction the most? Police officers - who breath in lead vapors from the indoor shooting ranges they go to. :) (often to save money straight lead bullets are used in practice, non-copper coated). (As a matter of science, teflon actually *retards* penetration into kevlar and spectra body armor... both of them are extremely strong in the direction of the polymer/fiber - and very weak laterally. (Which is why you don't see clothes made out of kevlar.. Nomex, an isomer of Kevlar, is used for heat-resistance, but it wears out quickly, as well. Its branched much more, and has much lower tensile strength). The *spinning* of the bullet against the fibers (which are usually knitted to "catch" it) shreds them. The less friction it can create, the less its able to shred them... lead projectiles coated in teflon experience a 30-40% *decrease* in penetration into Kevlar...) I will salute! your NRA when it er *bites THAT bullet*, ceases the preaching to converted doubletalk - and begins by acknowledging that *gun ownership is the essence of a TWO-edged sword* Don't wear out your hand. The "Eddie the Eagle" program is widely regarded as the *most effective* child-education program currently in production (Stop, run away, get an adult) - but since its from the NRA, and doesn't demonize weapons. The problem of gun in BAD people's hands they've know of for years. And its not something that's ignored - they want the focus on the BAD PERSON. That's the problem. Because that last: just is all we mainly HEAR from these dudes over and over and over *drumroll* - because you're watching the Meedja. And that's all they WANT you to hear from them. (example., most Meedja outlets will refuse to accept NRA advertising - while running for free, or reduced prices - ads from the various groups pledged to completely outlaw guns). Too bad, Addison - a pox on Both the houses: the One-Note-NRA? AND Let's-Confiscate-All Guns?. Its a false comparision, but I've explained that enough, I think. The NRA has the same thoughts about freedoms you have on the camera issue. (And most of us would oppose cameras, too). Once you give up something, its hard to get it back. And the opponents - such as the AMA president - are not opposed to outright lying, and ignoring the DAMAGE that they do (after all, its not THEM who's disarmed) (name me one major opponent of gun ownership who's not protected by armed guards). Remember - we're talking about something that historically has in every case - raised assault, rape, and murder rates. (And you're saying that people who say "Whoa, wait a minute, why do we want to do something that's been done lots of times before with the SAME EFFECT every time?" are deviant?) Additionally, the NRA wasn't greatly opposed to many gun laws - until it became obvious that people who wanted you and me and everybody disarmed for their great utopia - were using them to systematically do exactly that. You've got to remember where you're getting your information from, and what bias they have. Alas, the paranoid style of Murican politics nearly guarantees that.. the NRA-folk and their opponents - shall continue focussing upon the extremes The NRA and their brethren are on the defensive. The battle was brought to them. Just like the AMA president - others picked the battle, and picked the context. To then blame THEM for the tone is somewhat ironic, I think. Sure, there are lots of "You'll have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead, fingers" around. (most of whom have left the NRA for their being not hard-line enough). But that's because there are lots of people out there who are all in favor of confiscating EVERY SINGLE GUN. I spoke to one today. I mentioned something, referencing the Microsoft sop to the appeals court's decision, that its "compromise" like in the gun debate. The gun-grabbers say "Give us everything". "No". "OK, we'll just take THESE then". Next year "Give us everything". "NO!" "Ok, we'll take THESE then". Its the compromise of Europe of the late 30s... retreating and giving up - just not as much as was originally demanded. Whoo. What a "compromise". (Side note, in Chamberlain's defense, I read something interesting that said that rather than being Hitler's pawn, he was fully aware of what was going on, but was buying time, since the French and English weren't ready, and overestimated how ready Germany was.). And this person got mad, and told me in no uncertain terms that every gun should be outlawed, every one confiscated. (This person is jewish, and has relatives in Israel... and also 10 minutes later, was voicing a concern about getting raped. I was polite and didn't link the conversations). And yes, what you see in the Meedja is usually strident, from the NRA - but usually its made MORE SO, by someone with the same notion YOU do, and who is saying - that the NRA says this, does that, etc. I'll just ask you to actually look into it a bit more, because I can tell you that that's *not* the case. At best, its a gross distortion. Sometimes, more than you might like to think, its a outright lie. And just like this latest case (which the NRA I've not seen mentioned in, yet) - when someone comes out calling for "more and more and more" gun restriction - on further review.. it doesn't seem to be the good, obvious idea that they claimed. But calling for studies, and proof, and putting things in context... gets you branded as a "one note Johnny, who's nuts, and has a penile facination with guns"..... Look into the NRA more. I think you'll be very surprised by what you'll find. (Like they were a major force in the "three strikes" sort of laws. that they have no sympathy for felons using weapons...) But you will also likely find that when 'Oh, don't worry about it' sort of things came up, that the NRA got burned. NYC passed a law requiring registration of handguns. "Don't worry, we're not doing this to confiscate them". Few years later: "Turn it it in to the police, prove you sold it before such and such a date, or had it destroyed, or go to jail".... Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me twice....? Addison
|
Post #1,749
7/13/01 4:44:28 PM
|
En passant
No, re the Aryan NRA brotherhood quip - it's simply that a lot of lunatic fringe also imagines NRA is on the 'right' side - and just needs a little help.. from Them. Kinda hard to shoo away that friendly puppy with the ammonium nitrate keg on its collar. Not NRA's fault entirely - who coopts the name. But my quip could suggest - what you infer. OK: The North Dakota Aryan NRA-wannabe Posse Comitatus Marching Band then..
My sources are not just the talking heads either - but for the fortress mentation which NRA believes is necessary for them? - so Are the speeches often too close to the tired shibboleths, to ever evoke interest in the less polarizing activities you mention.
Still and all.."Like they were a major force in the "three strikes" sort of laws. that they have no sympathy for felons using weapons..." <<<<
I see this as no + at all, given the intent and actuality of the provisions passed: leaving judges no choice in tailoring the punishment to fit an Individual - his/her crime, previous performance, circumstances. Imagine: a judge in tears! apologizing to a young defendant he must impose a Draconian punisment upon because HE HAS NO CHOICE. And Muricans tolerate THIS !!! Baa Baa Baa == always choose the Simplistic over the merely Difficult but Necessary solution.
And if enough people imagine that judges are lenient? too lenient always? on this Particular case Ihappentohaveanopinion on? 'The Answer' (there is NO 'The Answer' EVER) is NOT to (very likely unconstitutionally = coopting via legislative branch!) REMOVE Judicial branch powers to er 'judge'. Perhaps there needs further ground for removing the aberrant extremist judges, as with the quacks perennially protected by the AMA (?) Maybe that isn't broken at all.
But we can't just bump Every judgment call up to a committee, or settle the problem of 'crime' by simplistic slogans like 3 Strikes. Even though that is the national style re all difficult topics.
(Remember: "3--Strikes" gained its largest momentum via the Polly Klass kidnap, prolly rape & certainly murder - by a recently released scum of the earth. This happened in my back yard. Via the accident of human frailty and poor cop-communications: a cop actually stopped this perp while the girl was left "up a hill" [Why Did She Not Then Scream? we will never learn]. It was a traumatic event, intensified for her being such a wonderful little girl (so.. are they all, of course - but some are more..) And it led directly to this nationwide hysteria justifying the crippling of the Judiciary in every state. I Vas Dere, Charlie. The place where they Almost saved the kid - is less than ~ 4 miles away.)
The entire idea - NRA support of 3-Strikes - merely bolsters my characterization of the NRA (too) as falling for just as mindless, simplistic 'solutions' -- as are ever popular with opportunistic pols and with people who have no sense of what individual rights might be. Or why we should care.
We won't 'get rid of the guns' and - we won't 'get rid of the criminals' via 3-Strikes: We Will and Are - locking up people for insane sentences (30-40 YEARS!) for ingesting 'illegal' substances in the privacy of their homes *(not cars, airplanes or boats). we are simply fucking hysterical about so-called illegal drugs. Evidence? lots. One - you cannot even use heroin in a Brompton cocktail for terminal cancer pain . Here! Despite it's being the most effective base ingredient known. UK uses the real thing - we settle for pharm-chem one-note-johnny single alkaloid derivatives (Heroin like Coca is a vast mixture of minor alkoloid variants).
* Yes, not only drug dealers - whom we imagine it's OK to savage out of all proportion: individual users caught with maybe a couple weeks' supply - on the rubric of.. "well, they Might want to use some and sell the rest".. That flies with DAs looking for Perfect Records to taut to the pols. Over and over. Pure sophistry institutionalized *now*.
Apparently - more than you do - I see a tissue of hypocritical laws around, drugs being the most overt: we are the largest assemblage of daily drug-users in history. Only the Pharm-Chem tax renders some street drug (same alkaloid with a twist) - OK for mom n' pop. I also see the clear thread of Puritanism behind most of our victimless crimes, from prostitution on. All my life I've observed this thread of 'causality'.
We are a nation of busybodies - believe we have the right to control behavior that some plurality deems.. immoral. That is how we act, though sanctimoniously deny that we do. (Somehow I imagine this last.. is a plank in the NRA framework too ?? Right to be fucking *Left Alone* ??)
The guns just let minor disagreements turn instantly into fatal ones - often played out by 13-year olds who wanna rap like that gangsta. (CD sold by that Mega-Corp which cares-Not what they do for $$ Nor doe we appear able to interfere with Any profit-making scam so long as: please to call it bizness. Then it is on hallowed ground and untouchable - the Murican Capitalist Creed, sub-\ufffd III)
Welcome to Bedlam USA. We'll sell Anything to kids. If there's $$ in it. For me. Is that the root of our idiocy: Puerile Mendacity In All Things in Life? No more simplistic a slogan than other Popular ones, I deem.
Ashton Once ashamed of ~'my country's behavior' internally & externally. Now: it ain't My country. Accidentally here, I try to live - even though 'here'.
|
Post #1,859
7/15/01 10:00:41 PM
|
I believe your anger is misplaced.
The entire idea - NRA support of 3-Strikes - merely bolsters my characterization of the NRA (too) as falling for just as mindless, simplistic 'solutions' -- as are ever popular with opportunistic pols and with people who have no sense of what individual rights might be.
Wait. One of the very very few organizations who are willing to stand up FOR your rights - one of the most important, as envisioned by the writers of the constitution, enumerated.... and they're for eroding individual rights?
Ash, seems to me that the pot is calling the kettle black here, when you paint the NRA as some sort of idiot organization. (And they can't win with you, especially since you've decided to ignore everything but preconceptions).
The support of three strikes was done because we do have a problem with crime. And since it turns out that something like 80% of violent crimes are committed by the SAME PEOPLE, the solution, simplistic as it might be, was "OK, we'll give you 3 strikes. If you get convicted three times of violent crimes, you don't get a chance to hurt anybody else".
And I *like* this overall concept. Its a simple system. Its fairly immune to abuse (it would be hard to imagine someone convicted falsely three times) (Note for those outside the US, (usually) its not three violent convictions (say, at the same trial), but three seperate trials).
I prefer systems that are simple, have margins for error, and aren't politically influenced.
we are simply fucking hysterical about so-called illegal drugs.
Often, we are. But this isn't really relevant to the NRA. Remember, the issue I'm trying to point out to you is you've taken a "snapshot" of the NRA, *based on the media's reports*, and its not a "true" picture. They're not advocating a lot of what you ascribe to them.
it's simply that a lot of lunatic fringe also imagines NRA is on the 'right' side
Why aren't they? I think they are. I think the ACLU is, with the exception of being embarressed of the 2nd amendment, and doing massive tap-dancing to avoid the support of it, that they give the 1st and 4th, etc.
What's "wrong" about the NRA? Their insistance on *your* civil liberties, their concern about encraaching government, their fighting with the belief that once you start allowing the government in, you won't get them out?
My sources are not just the talking heads either - but for the fortress mentation which NRA believes is necessary for them?
I have to question you on this... considering you're stating as fact the mistruths those talking heads persist in.
I might can agree with you its a fortress mentality. Just a couple weeks ago you had one, as well, when we discussed police monitoring of public places via cameras.
I see this as no + at all, given the intent and actuality of the provisions passed: leaving judges no choice in tailoring the punishment to fit an Individual - his/her crime, previous performance, circumstances.
First off, it also prevents either a judge from letting a violent felon walk.
Secondly, the whole point is with "3 strikes" is that there's BEEN CONSIDERATION in the past. It didn't work. I have no problems with violent felons being tossed into jail to rot after some number of attempts to teach/rehabilitate them.
They see you and me as prey, Ash. They see your Eden as a lush garden to rape, and take everything. But they do exist.
(and if you're talking about drug offenses, that's another story. I'm talking about the murders, rapists, violent felons. I don't have a problem presuming they can reform. But *at some point* you have to say - YOU! OUTTA THE POOL! NOW!)
Every judgment call up to a committee, or settle the problem of 'crime' by simplistic slogans like 3 Strikes. Even though that is the national style re all difficult topics.
I agree. You may notice that that's what raised my ire - that the president of the AMA decided that "guns are bad" - against all supporting documentation - and wants them outlawed. (One presumes, except for the ones protecting HIM).
(3 strikes might be a "simplistic" view - but note that it gets the point across... Picking battles is important, and if people aren't listeng to the facts...)
And *my* problem with this sort of "oversimplifcation" got you ranting and raving about the NRA - with a vastly over-simplified view of them.
Ironic, don'tcha think? :)
Addison
|
Post #1,869
7/15/01 11:55:03 PM
|
camels nose under the tent :)
two bad felonies 20 yrs in prison then a shoplifting charge, 3 strikes, now I have a shoplifter out on bail ready to kill to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison. OOPS. Should I be able to own a working Tank with all arms working? Yup. Until I have my 1st felony conviction (with violence) then I lose all right to own anything above a pellet gun. Simple, easy to enforce (but I need those instant checks with the fbi fsckers destroyng the checks under 3rd party non governmental oversight after 90 days.) thanx, bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|