Would You Ban All Guns If You Could?

I am not someone who would ban all guns if I could.

One of my brothers is a sports shooting enthusiast and has a range in his backyard and whenever Louise and I go back to Michigan we stay with him, and if we're there over the weekend we're always in the backyard shooting.

And the major downside of that, by the way, is that when you're done shooting, your hands are covered with lead powder which means that every time you go out shooting you probably lose a half an IQ point.

But that said, no, I wouldn't want to ban them.

I have respect for people who use guns for sporting purposes like my brother does.

I have respect for people who use guns for hunting - and I'm a vegetarian! And have been since I was 17 years old.

So no, I don't think that guns should be banned.

I think that we should have rational gun policies.

There are people, ranchers and whatnot, who actually need weapons.

There are a lot of people in particular jobs where concealed carry is a reasonable thing.

There are people who live in areas where they feel that they need a gun to defend themselves.

I'm not opposed to guns - I'm opposed to stupid gun policies.

We are 4 and a half percent of the world's population. We have 44 percent of the world's guns.

That's nuts!

The reality is that most Americans don't want to own a lot of guns.

There are many Americans who own one gun, or two or three guns, but people who are owning 40, 50, 60, 100 guns, that's a very, very small percentage of Americans.

The percentage of Americans who feel that their manhood is not complete if they don't have a very large weapon with a very large magazine, it's a very, very small percentage of people.

But the gun industry has the power through the NRA to buy legislators, now that the Supreme Court has said that it is okay for an industry to own individual politicians, the power to own Ted Cruz - they gave him $360,000, Marco Rubio got $176,000 - this is just the top 20 recipients of the gun lobby from last year.

Marco Rubio $176,000, Paul Ryan $171,000, Ron Johnson $165,000, Rand Paul $155,000, Pat Toomey $79,000, Ryan Zinke $79,000, the list goes on and on.

By the way, they're all Republicans, the top 20 recipients of gun money.

Because the gun industry, just like the fossil fuel industry, is a corrupt industry.

The weapons industry in the United States is making money off Americans killing each other.

My position has been for decades, and I continue to hold this position, that we should be as rational about guns as we are about cars.

Cars can kill people and in the 19-teens we put laws into place when cars started killing people to minimize the probability of that happening.

Number one: if you own a car, it's got to be registered: from the time of manufacture until the time of destruction there's a clear chain of ownership.

Number two: if you're going to use a car, you have to demonstrate you know how to use it safely. There's a driver's test.

And number three: if you own a car and you're going drive a car, you have to have liability insurance.

Those three things should be applied to gun owners. Very simple, very straightforward.

And then let the insurance market take care of this.

If some some guy wants to buy five AR-15s and a thousand rounds of ammunition, let his insurance company decide if he's going be a risk.

With your liability policy on your car, if you get a drunk driving conviction, your price is going go from $200 a year to $2,000 or whatever. I've never had a drunk driving conviction, I don't know this from personal experience, but my understanding is that it explodes the price. It makes sense, right?

So there you've got an actual marketplace that is actually having some impact on what's going on.

Comments

Outback 1 week 1 day ago
#1

Thom, as a gun owner I can't disagree with a single thing you've said here. Thank you for your rational position on an issue that has become highly emotional. (Did I spell everything right? I'm down about 45 IQ points due to lead poisoning sustained in target shooting over the years, and I repeat my request to add a spell checker to your site).

deepspace's picture
deepspace 1 week 1 day ago
#2

Haha, those 45 points haven't hurt you a bit, and I bet you're a damn good shot. At least we have smokeless powder nowadays, so as not to give away our position come the revolution.

stopgap's picture
stopgap 1 week 1 day ago
#3

I would ban all firearms for Republicans. With the election of Trump, they have already proven themselves to be mentally incompetent.

Outback, If you can't spell a damn thing, like myself; do what I do. I type it out in the "TextEdit" feature of my Mac, then paste it into the box. I'm sure you have a similar program on your computer. After all, if you are a "birdbrain" like me, you have to at least put up some kinda front to make people at least think you know what the hell you are talking about.

Don't tell the trolls though! I wouldn't want to ruin my intellectual creditability.

deepspace's picture
deepspace 1 week 1 day ago
#4

Yes, disarming fools is a wise move.

tcluney's picture
tcluney 1 week 1 day ago
#5

Couldn’t agree more Thom on your rationale on guns. Growing up in Michigan, guns are apart of life. Most people I know follow the firearm laws perfectly as they do not want to lose the privilege of owning and using their guns.

Probably the most affective way to lower crime and reduce gun violence is a good economy. So many crimes are for money, food and basic necessities. My wife and I watched a documentary in Trenton New Jersey and a young man said the only reason he was stealing cars was for the money.

Another way to reduce gun violence is a Gun Law reform. Keep the laws that work, throw out the laws that don’t and collectively create new laws. It might sound overly simplified, but our law makers sure haven’t made any laws that have helped. Matter a fact, they haven’t helped at all!!

Howard Laverne Stewart's picture
Howard Laverne ... 1 week 1 day ago
#6

It's a brilliant idea that has been proven to work already.

Outback 1 week 1 day ago
#7

Stopgap, sometimes I do generate text in a local editor and paste it in, but then I get these annoying formatting characters. I wrote the following in such an editor and perhaps it will paste in without the extraneous characters. Here it is:

p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%;

On assault rifles versus “more reasonable” firearms: This issue of whether or not it's appropriate for average citizens to own “military grade” weapons has been blown way out of proportion in my estimation. For any who care to listen, here are a couple of facts. First off, every type of firearm, regardless of configuration, can be used to kill people. Period. So let's take the 12 gauge shotgun as an example. These weapons, commonly used for bird hunting, can be loaded with 00 Buckshot, each pellet, roughly equivalent to a .38 or 9mm round (don't recall if it's 12 or 16 per round, and it doesn't really matter) can put more lead in the air per unit time, by far, than an AR-15 firing on full automatic. True, they are typically limited in magazine capacity to five or six rounds. But there are techniques to reload almost as fast as you can pump the action, available on youtube. So which is more dangerous in the hands of a lunatic? A garden variety shotgun or an AR-15?. If the guy owns a hacksaw, I claim the shotgun is a far more deadly weapon in a theater or crowded nightclub than the AR-15. But if your thing is to knock somebody off at 300 yards, would you choose an AR-15 or a garden variety bolt action .270 or 30-06 with a 10 power scope? I think Kennedy's assassin answered that question. Yet these are considered “benign” hunting implements by most people. My point here is that there is some kind of visceral response to “military assault weapons” that is both popular and unfounded. Assault rifles are good at what they were designed to do. Other weapons can be more damaging in the wrong hands. And of course, there is an entirely valid construct that could be stated here that has to do with the availability of HumVee's, nitrate fertilizer, gasoline, etc.etc. So please, let's get off this kick of villainizing assault rifles (along with anyone who happens to own one for less than homicidal purposes) and focus on the issues that are really at the center of the issue. Sensible regulation of firearms, as Thom has stated, restricting their use by those shown to be a risk factor (can't pass the test, history of violence, felony convictions, etc.) and let go of this hysteria about “assault weapons”.

Outback 1 week 1 day ago
#8

Nope....

js121's picture
js121 1 week 1 day ago
#9

I agree, Thom. As a Cdn., the Gov't spent $2Billion trying to get weapons registered. Cost prohibitive so they dropped it. Guns in Canada are only for target ranges. Rifles for hunting. Strict regulations kept our deaths at 200/year approximately. Most due to suicides. We have plenty of regulations & no one complains and it's worked for a very long time. Lead out of ammo helps keep critters alive, too. It's responsible and babies don't kill babies. I hope Americans decide to regulate b/c just going to a gas station around here is a risk and it shouldn't be that way. Where is peaceful enjoyment of life when everyone & everywhere you go, you see everyone armed? People want security, peace, and to know that their kids will return home safely.

Nomastrump's picture
Nomastrump 1 week 1 day ago
#10

Republicans have a built-in fear of flying stemming from airplanes having both a left wing and a right wing. The two wings "cooperate" to get the plane to where it needs to go. Instinctively they know that but are in resentment of sorts... that the left wing and right wings work together making the plane fly to higher altitude. When nations have tried to "fly.. reaching new heights" with only right wings they have crashed and burned, leaving only skid marks on the runway to memorialize their flight. Thus America is now flying on only a right wing... with a small First Class section... but it can't reach new altitude.. and can only be in a downward spiral... taking it's Coach Class passengers with it. I thought of this today, seeing a plane crash on TV news... saw it as a metaphor for what "Air America" is all about. So-called "gun rights" have implemneted an "Air America" with only a right wing and thus put it in a downward spiral. Bang bang... as TS Eliot put it: this is the way the world ends... not with abng but a whimper.. at the grave side of a victim of a mass murdering.

Hephaestus's picture
Hephaestus 1 week 1 day ago
#11

Thom

"Because the gun industry, just like the fossil fuel industry, is a corrupt industry."

Where does the corruption lie?

It is only because our representatives of "we the people" allow them to be so

Our representatives are "the" corrupt for accepting bribery

2950-10K's picture
2950-10K 1 week 1 day ago
#12

There are too many Dick Cheneys out there for me to even want to hunt anymore! I do own a Rev War period musket most likely connected to the Battle of Yorktown, that's what the experts tell me anyway......I'm happy with that, I don't desire anymore guns.

deepspace's picture
deepspace 1 week 22 hours ago
#13

js121. Thanks for a great perspective from someone who actually lives in a country that sees the light.

Nomastrump. Cool metaphor! LOL, I was wondering why "wingers" have been flying around in circles all these years. Let the record show that Democrats, much to the chagrin of many in their base, have bent over backwards trying to find common ground with Republican reprobates on important issues that actually matter to most citizens.

All to no avail (unless Republicans paint themselves into a corner and need Democrats to bail them out). Their big idea of compromise is usually for "Dumbocrats" just to sit down and shut up ...and for God's sake, whatever else you may say or do, please, please, please do not vote! Oh, the horror!

Outback. Touché. Again, a well-defended argument.

Although it's undeniable that mass murderers are very inventive at dreaming up different ways to commit atrocities, especially the bombers (It's a good thing plastic explosives are heavily restricted.), why do so many shooters nowadays prefer the AR's with banana clips and/or auto-pistols with foot-long clips? Is it because they are readily available, convenient, and can kill many people in a short time at a great distance, unlike a scattergun?

Sawed-off shotguns (later banned by The Geneva Conventions) were very deadly at close range in WWI trenches. And they could be very deadly in, say, a school, church, or theater. But they are still not as deadly as rockin' and rollin' with a modified military-grade AR and fast-change clips. Maybe we can't totally ban mass-murder machines in the U.S. because of our entrenched gun culture, but surely, they need to be much more regulated.

Personally, I still think America has way too many military assault weapons sloshing around on the streets where we are trying to live and raise children. And they are called "military assault weapons" because that is exactly what they are. You wouldn't call an artillery piece a slingshot.

I used to enjoy shooting my AR-15 (sold it at a loss to get rid of it), as I did the M-16 while in the military, until Columbine (Hi-Point 995 9mm carbine, sawed-off shotguns, and homemade explosives), the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting (tear gas grenades, M&P15 Sport rifle, Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun, Glock 22 handgun), Sandy Hook (Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle), and on and on, got stuck in my noodle.

You're right; it is emotional -- a great sadness. I trained extensively for it but never had the opportunity to fight in a live shooting war. (Thank God!) When I got out of the Army, I didn't expect to come home to a live domestic war zone.

"Since then [Sandy Hook], there have been at least 1,552 mass shootings, with at least 1,767 people killed and 6,227 wounded." -- Gun Violence Archive.

Good debate, Outback. Thanks.

https://www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-sandy-hook

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/12/481768384/a-list-of-the-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history

Outback 1 week 22 hours ago
#14

Points well taken, deepspace. In a perfect world, there would be no deadly weapons out there. I'm afraid we turned that corner a while ago, however.

DHBranski's picture
DHBranski 1 week 22 hours ago
#15

The US is a dangerous, violent nation -- not only in the urban areas. Many of the elderly, the disabled, etc., rely on guns for protection. That's just a reality of life in this country.

HotCoffee's picture
HotCoffee 1 week 22 hours ago
#16

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

DHBranski's picture
DHBranski 1 week 22 hours ago
#17

The US is a violent country with a violent culture -- whether they use guns, knives, fists, bottles, or bombs. Add in the extraordinary economic stresses of this era, where millions are on a rightrope with no safety net below. Millions or ordinary people know that they need protection from their fellow Americans. Not happy talk, but this is the way it is.

HotCoffee's picture
HotCoffee 1 week 21 hours ago
#18

The mainstream media has completely forgotten about the deadliest church massacre in history, the one the US government carried out in Waco, Texas.

On Sunday, a horrifying tragedy unfolded as a mass shooting terrorist walked into a Texas church and began slaughtering innocent women, men, and children. The massacre left 26 people dead, according to police, including an unborn child who died inside his pregnant mother.

On Wednesday, the names of the deceased were released along with the heartbreaking photos of the children, two of which were only 5 and 7-years-old. The tragedy is being dubbed the deadliest mass shooting in Texas history.

Sadly, there have been many deadly massacres which have taken place inside places of worship. From the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing to the Charleston Church shooting to Sutherland Springs, over the years, psychotic terrorists have gone into churches and indiscriminately taken innocent lives.

Now, some of those in the mainstream media are calling Sutherland Springs the deadly massacre in a church in US history. However, the actual largest church massacre in history had a far greater death toll.

The US government carried out the deadliest church massacre in history and it led to the deaths of 82 men, women, and children. It all came to a violent end 24 years ago in Texas

Our source material comes from the FBI’s own vault, which contains two files on the case against Vernon Howell, also known as David Koresh. Koresh was the leader of the “Branch Davidians Seventh Day Adventists.” According to the FBI case file, Koresh was believed to have been holding people against their will at his compound in Waco, Texas, potentially guilty of “involuntary servitude and slavery” charges.

In 1992, Child Protective Services (CPS) was called in to investigate the accusations. After a thorough investigation, CPS concluded no one was being held at the compound against their will, nor any child abuse, and the federal prosecutor, who reviewed the report, saw no reason to prosecute Koresh. On October 16th, 1992, the FBI closed the case against Koresh and the allegations he was abusing children and holding his followers against their will.

we all know how it ended.

bought to you by Bill Clinton & Janet Reno

.

geohorse's picture
geohorse 1 week 14 hours ago
#19

Totally agree-spoken like a small farmer who is educated in the classical mode and more.

Many thinks--your writings and TV programs should become mainstream media for real progress in this country or all the "chicken little" warnings will come true.

Dianereynolds's picture
Dianereynolds 1 week 13 hours ago
#20

Not rocket science here pony boy. HotCoffee is pointing out Thom is full of crap when he pumps out the Hartmann version of the second amendment.

BTW, hell has frozen over,

Thom Hartmann says he does not want to ban guns and Rick Steves endorses the Republicans health plan regarding medical savings accounts.

deepspace's picture
deepspace 1 week 13 hours ago
#21

Don't give a sh*t what you have to say anymore, granny; was more interested in what HotCoffee's take is. Your filter is too worn out and clogged up with decades and decades of right-wing spit and puss ...and, now, wistful visions of Big Daddy grabbing your pussy.

Dianereynolds's picture
Dianereynolds 1 week 13 hours ago
#22

And you stud muffin, clearly spent too much time on the DuckDuckGo machine trying to create a persona for yourself. Next time don't put in so much detail, it gives you away.

deepspace's picture
deepspace 1 week 13 hours ago
#23

HotCoffee. What's your point? Nothing wrong with doing so, but you just posted a long list of the same exact cherry-picked quotes twice, yesterday and today, from a lot of different people who lived a long time ago in a completely different, pre-industrial, mostly hunting and agricultural era where guns were a completely different technological beast and which had a totally different significance to everyday survival than what the reality is today in the postmodern era with a professional, highly sophisticated and mechanized standing army, along with a permanent, well-equipped national guard to protect us.

But I'm still not sure what you are ultimately trying to say. Sorry. Can you elaborate a little more?

Kilosqrd's picture
Kilosqrd 1 week 13 hours ago
#24

If you can't figure out what Hot Coffee is saying, maybe I can help.

To summarize, the point the Founding Fathers were making is:

Any Government who does not trust their citizens to own firearms, itself cannot be trusted.

History is repleat with examples.

K2

Kilosqrd's picture
Kilosqrd 1 week 12 hours ago
#25

Thom,

I will not go through all your points with my counterpoints except for one, just for the sake of brevity. Registration.

Consider a law that requires registration of firearms: a convicted felon can not be convicted for failing to register a gun, because it is illegal under Federal law for a felon to possess a firearm; but a person who can legally own a gun, and fails to register it, can be punished.

The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

lefaivre's picture
lefaivre 1 week 12 hours ago
#26

I completely agree that guns should be registered and I think the insurance requirement is a good thing. I don't agree that manufacturers should be able to sell to the general public weapons whose only possible use is killing human beings. I don't hunt but I can't imagine that you go after squirels or rabbits with an AR 15. I also think hunters and target shooters have time to reload so don't need 30 round clips. If we add to registration and banning assault weapons a data base that keeps information on felons and mentally unstable individuals, that would consitute effective, sensible gun control. You do have to accept that some people who might be perfectly willing to us guns responsibly will get caught up in the unstable or criminal labels but I think we just hve to accdpt that.

arky12's picture
arky12 1 week 12 hours ago
#27

Off topic but don't know where else to put this.

I was researching the proposed budget and IRS revenue projection and ran across this info regarding unemployment benefits and who pays for it. I've often argued that this is NOT paid for by workers but by employers and some people actually thought it was the FICA tax which is for SS. Here it is straight from IRS website.
"Federal Unemployment (FUTA) Tax
Employers report and pay FUTA tax separately from Federal Income tax, and social security and Medicare taxes. You pay FUTA tax only from your own funds. Employees do not pay this tax or have it withheld from their pay. Refer to Publication 15, Employer's Tax Guide and Publication 15-A, Employer's Supplemental Tax Guide for more information on FUTA tax."

deepspace's picture
deepspace 1 week 10 hours ago
#28

K2 #24. Haha, Okay got it. Sorry, I was just baiting HotCoffee with a little light-hearted tongue and cheek humor. A little too subtle perhaps? Her point in her double posts was elaborated on quite sufficiently for both threads I would think, right? It was an interesting read, and with such long posts she is a gal after my heart.

};--))

deepspace's picture
deepspace 1 week 10 hours ago
#29

#22.

Oh I see; now it's all about "creating a persona" for myself and not the subject matter. Strange. Why would you think that -- because that is what you are trying to do?

In your mind evidently, revealed by your own words, posting on Thom's blog is all about shallow, high-school-level ego games and no substance, scoring drive-by hits on the stupid liberals in a vain effort to mollify the sneaking hunch that you might have wasted years of precious life totally hornswoggled by liars who call themselves "conservative" -- one of the most abused misnomers of all time.

All ego and no substance. Other than Republican programmed talking points, it's all ya got. So naturally you can't handle detail. I just try to describe what's already there, right out in front of God and everyone to see. It has nothing to do with me personally, even though you continually try to make it so. Therefore, I just give you a taste of your own medicine, and try to have fun with it. That's all; pretty straight forward stuff, no? Why do you ascribe an ulterior motive?

Of course the devil is in the details, especially when you're dealing with the empty rhetoric and lies of Republicans. Since you seem obsessed by my process of writing in fleshing out the pithy, half-baked thoughts of trolls -- where wingerisms fall apart -- I'll admit that drilling down past the baloney does take some effort. Obviously.

I'm more of a reader than a watcher and, when not traveling, usually write in a room full of books, magazines, and various other reference materials, which are consulted regularly as well as the internet. I quit watching TV after Bush, Cheney, the fossil fuel industry, defense contractors, Wall Street Bankers, right-wing think tanks, and corporate media pundits used that platform to lie our nation into wars for oil and profit.

As we all know, writing is a continuous struggle to say what one means so that there is no question about a taken position, right or wrong, good or bad. To be honest, failure is more common than success in this never-ending uphill battle. I wouldn't be a pimple on a real writer's ass, like Thom -- it takes way too much time and dedication, and I hate sitting on my ass for long periods of time -- it aint healthy.

Sooo... what exactly is it about that process that "gives [me] away" in your little troll mind? More curious, why do you and the other trolls post here? You sure love to ascribe to others your own subjective interpretations and biases, with no credible outward evidence, but never explain yourself.

Those questions are only rhetorical, granny; like I said, other than to tease you or for a spring board, I really don't care what you think or why, since you only seem to play on the surface and can only offer the same old right-wing crap that blares out nonstop over the airways, cable, and the internet swamp. Repetitive nonsense that means nothing and in the end is just boring as hell!

Are the details of that position clear enough for you now?

Dianereynolds's picture
Dianereynolds 1 week 8 hours ago
#30

Rather than constructing eight paragraphs of response, why don't you just follow this sage advice, especially the last sentence.

Mr. Ed sez, “You're not Mommy the Monitor. This is a free-speech zone, so post as much or as little as your black heart desires. If you can't handle my politically incorrect posts, then don't read them and don't respond.”

Ou812's picture
Ou812 1 week 8 hours ago
#31

@29 Dumb Shit
Your statement "'I'm more of a reader than a watcher and, when not traveling, usually write in a room full of books, magazines, and various other reference materials, which are consulted regularly as well as the internet. I quit watching TV after Bush, Cheney, the fossil fuel industry, defense contractors, Wall Street Bankers, right-wing think tanks, and corporate media pundits used that platform to lie our nation into wars for oil and profit."

If the above is true, that you quit watching TV, than explain this " I really don't care what you think or why, since you only seem to play on the surface and can only offer the same old right-wing crap that blares out nonstop over the airways, cable, and the internet swamp. Repetitive nonsense that means nothing and in the end is just boring as hell!

Are you lieing in the first part or the second part

You really are on an Ego trip, a delusional one I might add. Quit trying to Bully everyone, it's not working here.

HotCoffee's picture
HotCoffee 1 week 5 hours ago
#32

It would help if Eric Holder, Ollie North and all those in between didn't keep fast & furious gun drops going.

Cartels from South of the Border, Bulgaria, and serveral other countries bring their big bad guns to their illegal pot grows in California. Home invasions happen regularly.

Police at least an hour away from most invasions.

#28

They seem to forget to use muskets. I notice it's ok when you bring up FDR...yet if I put out info on T. Jefferson it's a problem for you. Different strokes for different folks?

Riverplunge's picture
Riverplunge 1 week 5 hours ago
#33

Never mind the amount of guns. $$$ The gun makers and NGA are addicted to money. $$$ Not even a freight train will stop them..

Gun Insurance would put a damper on things. You don't have to register your stash of guns (for the paranoid) - Just have insurance if someone gets hurt. No insurance? Jail time! And allow people to carry guns at gun shows to show how safe they are. In fact, make it mandatory at gun shows.. Show the world how safe you feel around other gun owners! Let's put that on camera!

Enact laws that would incrementally punish people more with larger clips if they get into a shooting incident. More bullets more time. No execeptions. No excuses.

deepspace's picture
deepspace 6 days 15 hours ago
#34

#30: Nothing but emptiness.

Mommy the Monitor strikes again! She wants us all to follow her shining example and just post pissy little inconsequential remarks like hers, which on further examination have no real-life significance outside of her cavernous skull. She's good at counting paragraphs, not so good at reading them. (And she even had two fingers left on one hand!) That's okay; after years and years of absorbing bumper-sticker slogans passed off as "news" for lazy minds, it's understandable why Republican Trumpies can only handle a few lines of text before they're hopelessly confused.

For instance, granny loves to quote me out of context, one paragraph in particular that evidently fascinates her childish mind, but then can only comprehend half of it, totally missing the overall point. ("Ooowww, four lines of text -- my head hurts!")

Note to mommy: Square pegs don't fit into round holes. Each thread of discussion is a unique combination of factors, so trying to apply an out-of-context quote from one thread to another in a different context, in order to falsely insinuate some sort of hypocrisy, is maybe -- maybe -- at the 6th grade level of reading comprehension and composition, and is intellectually dishonest. (No offense to 6th graders.)

Back to this thread though: Smack dab at the end of the post immediately preceding yours (hard to miss), what part of "...other than to tease you or for a spring board, I really don't care what you think or why..." don't you understand?

Don't flatter yourself, óinseach. Your anemic posts are neither politically incorrect nor politically insightful nor hard to handle. They're just foolish. However, you and your butt buddies provide a constant source of fodder to demonstrate the paucity of the so-called "conservative mind," which definitely is not conservative and plainly has no mind. So I'll read (or not) Trump troll's inane comments and respond (or not) as I wish. That is the full meaning of your borrowed quote, in case you need the original author to spell it out, which obviously you do.)

Hotdamn, your eyeballs and brain must really be hemorrhaging now -- that was more than two sentences! Count 'em up, granny; it'll entertain you until your grandkids show up with a new set of Tinkertoys.

deepspace's picture
deepspace 6 days 8 hours ago
#35

#31: Holy bigdickinthemouth, Batman! You must be a real hit with your students! I bet they can't wait until the bell rings.

I am sooo sorry -- not! -- that my big ego and bullying has you sooo upset. YES! SUCCESS! Another Trump snowflake melts in the heat ...of honest scrutiny. Clearly the "bullying" (or rather, the simple pointing out of deliberate lies and blind hypocrisy, albeit with a bit of colorful street language) is most definitely working as evidenced by your miffed retort.

What is not working however -- in fact is backfiring badly -- is the pathetic schoolyard bullying of the overweight, over-the-hill, limp-dicked, creepy-old-man, pussy-grabber, criminal rapist whom you are so eager to emulate. As long as were 'splainin' things here, why don't you fess up and explain your sick infatuation with this pervert?

Crickets...

BTW, My preferred method of aggressive ridicule (so well earned) is not for "everyone" -- said bullying is tailor made with loving care exclusively for you and your fellow "washed-up righties." ("That's not an insult, just the truth." -- Ou812) But don't get all chubbed up just yet, ya feckin' chancer; this here, ah, big 'ol "ego" will horse it into ya hard and leave ya spent! (Insert evil cackle-whinny here.)

Hint on logic: Don't lead with your "dumb shit" jab and then end with being the whiny little bitch about bullying. Hypocrisy in; hypocrisy out. Is that all you retained from watching Imus in the Morning? LOL.

Clarification on straw-man argument: Please demonstrate -- in your own words, dick-breath, not mine -- where I'm lying or being inconsistent in any way shape or form in the two quotes (thank you) that you have so honored me with by citing in full ...mostly?

(FYI: It's not spelled "lieing", Ms./mr. "Teach" ...unless you're "lieing" about that too, which is, mmm, starting to sound veeery suspicious.)

Pardon me salty alley tongue, dingleberrie, but what feckin' bum's butt did you pop out of? I think 2950-10K is right -- when all is said and done, the bottom line is you really are just plain ass stupid, as in low IQ.

There is simply no other logical explanation when the evidence is displayed right directly in front of everybody's eyeballs on a public forum in plain English. Pretty damn hard to ignore or deny. I actually feel a tinge of compassion for what you must suffer in life.

But the dreary truth marches on...

...And some feckface needs it 'splained. Jaysus sufferin' f*ck! 63 million of these complete idiots voted! It's no goddamn wonder we now have "F*ckface Von Clownstick" twittering juvenile ego sh*t in the Oval Office crapper and the McTurtle-Ryan sideshow herding hissy-fit cats in Congress.

Every single nook and cranny on planet f*cking Earth is stuffed full of glaring blaring, chirping, chattering TV screens, gigantic ones, teeny ones, and all the shapes and sizes in between. And spare-arse Bachmann-gobshite, LMOA, wearin' her swamp sh*t-blinders and dickhead ear plugs, stuffed all the way into what passes as a brain, is as baffled as bullsh*t that someone who doesn't own one of those goddamn hunks of worthless plastic crap and wasted resources, and who doesn't live in a sealed-off tomb, would somehow know about all the "Repetitive nonsense that means nothing and in the end is just boring as hell!"

Yup, 2950-10K ask the exact right question: "Are you stupid?"

And, are we clear here, boys and girls, er, "my followers"? LOL! So that there is absolutely no confusion, I dare mingin' molly, or anyone else stubbornly still reading this screed, to get through just one "normal" day in Happy Brainwash Land without having ubiquitous robot TV trolls clawing at your poor beat-down frontal lobes. Good luck with that. Ya can't avoid the little f*ckers; they're poppin' up every-goddamn-where like stupid troll posts!

My personal form of protest that I highly recommend: At every possible opportunity despite angry glares, hit the little, almost hidden OFF button -- at the stores, shops, eateries, bars, schools, doctor office (especially), or any-damn-where else they might jump out to git ya. (Lightening keeps me from the churches.) Abso-goddamn-lutely I quit watching the idiot-f*cking-box! Can't explain it more directly.

And I'm so goddamn damn glad that I did ...a long, long time ago in a distant galaxy. Poor another pint o' Guinness. Ahhh, what a relief! Now that's real freedom, buddy, not the hollow "liberty and freedom" motto tattooed on the fatty biceps of some bogger eejit with a pussgut hidin' his clackers.

"Idiot box," by the way, is the most accurate name for it. Sorry to throw around more irritating details, those damnable "details!" (Thanks again, granny, for studiously perusing my latest work product here -- it's a "Christmas gift" meant for you too.) But, yes, as you might suspect, brain scientists have demonstrated that corporate TV programming's long-term effect on concentration can be worse than alcohol and drugs.

Contrary to old wives' tales (no offense, granny), the conscious and deliberate human mind never multi-tasks very well, because the process of thinking happens basically in chronological succession, which means it happens one thought at a time. That means, in turn, although we certainly can purportedly "multi-task," we really can't perform each sub-task very efficiently or sufficiently. Only when we can focus without undo distraction (given the numerous other unavoidable demands in our rat-race world) on one task at a time do we get good at each of them. Plus, anxiety levels plummet and life is a more easy-going, pleasant experience after you hit the OFF button.

Ergo, TV "users" subject to constant marketing every five minutes during commercials, and broken-up, rapid-fire action every few seconds during regular programming, are retarding their active thought constructs through the sheer volume of endless interruptions and glitzy, addicting distractions. Long term exposure to such a bombardment of the senses severely shortens attention span -- which is borne out by the disjointed thought patterns of Grumpy Trumpy dolls every day on this blog, although it would be unfair to blame it all on the TV industry. Sometimes basic stupidity is congenital.

And for that I have great sympathy. Hard to say it, but it's not really a gobshite's fault that he or she or whatever felt compelled to vote for another born fool. You know -- science.

Thanks again for shoppin' at our lil' house o' whores. Ya'all come back now. Hope not too many of yer fartstrings were pulled, troll-shites. (Now leave a "Grant" on the dresser and pull yer manky trousers back up, skank. Yer trunks are leapin' wi' dingleberries!)

slán

deepspace's picture
deepspace 6 days 5 hours ago
#36

#28: "They seem to forget to use muskets. I notice it's ok when you bring up FDR...yet if I put out info on T. Jefferson it's a problem for you. Different strokes for different folks?" --HC

#23: "But I'm still not sure what you are ultimately trying to say. Sorry. Can you elaborate a little more?" --ds

Uhhh ...please go back and point out specifically where I said or even intimated that it's "a problem" for me that you posted quotes of Jefferson. You can't because I didn't.

Jumpin' Jaysus, Mary, and Joseph! What is it with you Grumpy Trumpy dolls and straw-man arguments and ad hominem attacks?! Please review the definition of the ad hominem debate tactic: It's fine to insult (I love 'em.), but you must at least add a little bit of honest substance in a response to a response in a debate (which is basically what a public forum is) for it not to be considered a logical fallacy.

Other infected spittle that flies out of the slobbering mouths of right-wing swamp critters (Ah c'mon, can't ya feel the love between the lines?): false equivalency; false moral equivalency; correlation vs causation, faulty analogy; non sequitur; red herring; slippery slope; cherry picking; circular reasoning; and ...drum roll... failing occam's razor (my all-time favorite troll turd, because it opens the door to some really easy bullying, lol).

Don't mean to single you out too harshly though; it's easy for all of us to fall into the same traps, which I am certainly guilty of way too many times to count despite trying to check common reasoning mistakes ...ah, at least some of the time maybe? Human nature.

For a comprehensive list and examples (worth a read):

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

https://www.pcworld.com/article/184426/illogic_of_the_web.html

I enjoyed reading post #16 actually. Sorry, was just baiting you with my own jamb-packed, run-on sentence but was sincerely interested in hearing your own voice and takes, maybe a synopsis of all the quotes or something. Haha, so my "big ego" can horse it in and rip ya a new one! Oh well.

Geez, lighten up, gals.

Ou812's picture
Ou812 6 days 5 hours ago
#37

@35

Thank You Al Gore for inventing scrolling :))

HotCoffee's picture
HotCoffee 6 days 5 hours ago
#38

ds,

Keep practicing ....soon you will find a description fowl enough for the other posters to make even you happy. What talent....not. Too bad you don't put that energy into a reasoned discussion.

You could have opened a discussion of the article....but no...too much fun looking for ugly discriptions of the "{gals)"....

You have writing talent why don't you use it?

deepspace's picture
deepspace 5 days 20 hours ago
#39

# 38: Aaawww, another snowflake melts in the sunshine...

Ya gotta love the Irish though -- here's a new twist on one of their old proverbs: "Insults are pronounced the same everywhere in America, they only sound different."

I'm sorry you're out of your comfort zone and don't appreciate my crude writing style, but what is truly "foul and ugly", a helluva lot more than a little dose of salty language to spice things up now and then, is the stench of worthless assholes (i.e., Grumpy Trumpy dolls, happy Trump trolls, feckin' gobshites, male, female or combination of both, et al. For sh*ts and giggles, they come onto liberal blogs such as this one to dump their load of focking ballsch, disseminating Republican Big Lies and ridiculous right-wing garbage that has no moral underpinning whatsoever or any inkling of truth and reality.

And they most certainly have "too much fun looking for ugly discriptions [sic] of the" ... "washed-up leftie-socialists" (yawn) in comment after comment, thread after thread. When they stop shooting, I'll stop. When they quit insulting and lying ("foul and ugly" words indeed) to and about the liberal bloggers in nearly every goddamn post, then I'll quit insulting them (sniff, a tremendous sacrifice on my part) -- unless Sue Nethercott, the real monitor, intervenes first. I certainly don't expect a free pass and neither should they, especially when their ad hominem attacks are non sequiturs with no connection to the topic at hand.

In fact in post #23, my initial contact with you on this thread, if you noticed (evidently not), despite our past "battles," I tried to bury the hatchet by asking a fairly reasonable, garden-variety question -- no cussing or insults, just 100% subject matter -- about the main point(s) you were trying to convey in that long list of cherry-picked quotes, which you obviously researched meticulously in order to bolster your unspoken side of the argument, and which is commendable on your part. After perusing your list of our founders' words, I had a pretty good idea what you were trying to get at, of course, but why should a reader have to guess what a writer means?

Jefferson was a complicated and conflicted soul throughout most of his life who changed some of his positions as he got older and wiser. For a more complete profile of this great man, beyond those few quotes from a lifetime of his writings, look no further than this website. Thom is a scholar of that era and has written extensively in many books and articles about Jefferson and the other Founders with very precise accuracy in the context of their times and in wonderful detail. That is basically the gist of what might have been a "reasoned discussion", from my point of view anyway, had you not slammed the door by lying right out of the chute, which is pointed out at the beginning of post #36.

Like you say, words matter. If I had gotten your point of view wrong by assuming what you did not explicitly state, you would surely have jumped all over me for putting words in your mouth, no? So why not just state it clearly for the record? That's all I was trying to get at. I thought it was clear and straight forward. I mean, right or wrong, "ugly" or not, I don't think there's any mistaking my own long-winded, painstakingly spelled out positions, is there? LOL.

Yet ...bam... in post #32, you just couldn't resist to pretty much directly lie about the content of post #23 -- it seems almost like a subconscious tick or perhaps an ax to grind over something I might have said in the past to you or someone else. After a zillion words, it's hard to keep track of everything in the hazy and hopelessly complicated past, so I primarily try to focus on the immediate present, which is equally complicated, not quite as hazy, yet absolutely critical for the survival of future life on Earth.

Regardless of everything else swirling around us though, such a fundamental lie that deliberately twists someone else's words to mean what you want them to mean, even though the original words reveal nothing of the kind (of which you have readily accused others), is most "foul and ugly", to me much worse than having a little "fun" with some off-color descriptors -- pretty tame stuff compared to the violent vulgarity of, say, a typical Trump rally.

So much for attempting to "[open] a discussion of the article" and to have a "reasonable discussion" I guess. Never again. That's okay though -- back to having a blast with just another dime-a-dozen troll:

Proven yet again, it's impossible to have a "reasoned discussion" with flat-out f*cking liars and nonstop intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy. And I'm not the only one who has figured that out about the trolls on this blog since the coronation of King Pussy Grabber, the foulest and ugliest human being imaginable who has ever took a dump in the Oval Office. After awhile, there's no sense even trying, so one may as well have some fun poking sticks at the damn fools until their sphincters are twitching like jumpin' beans and ass juice is runnin' down their legs.

Of course, Trump trolls never seem to have much of a problem with Trump's well-documented disgusting and "ugly" persona, fat ego, pathological lies, petty vindictiveness, angry rhetoric, hate mongering, egomaniacal self-centeredness, self-dealing, greed, xenophobia, bigotry, racism, and misogyny, etc., etc., etc. -- the complete on-record list is much too long for even your copy-and-paste posts. "Too bad you don't put [your] energy ... [and] talents" into helping expose this phony as hell rat-bastard for what he obviously is, instead of always deflecting with false equivalency and double-standard "Hellary" hating, oh sweet óinseach. (The Gaelic male-gender equivalent is amadán.)

BTW, female liar, just to set the record straight (check the archives), I'm an equal opportunity insulter whether a lying troll has a penis or a vagina, so don't have a big hissy fit and pull out the "woman card" like you Hellary haters always falsely accuse her of doing, even when her complaints in that regard are totally legitimate. I don't just have "too much fun looking for ugly discriptions [sic] of the "{gals) [sic]"; there's plenty of swingin' dicks out there who've earned their share of wrath and ridicule for regurgitating hugely destructive propaganda, which is literally tearing apart the fabric of society right in front of our eyes as we speak. It's our duty as citizens to fight back hard with everything in our meager armory.

So when male trollshites pop their stupid Republican dunderheads out of their far-right, dark little sh*tholes ...well then, it's time to play whack-a-mole with those pricks too. Negan's Lucille bat is gender non-specific. At the moment, most of the Grumpy Trumpy dolls happen to be "gals" -- ain't my fault. (Though nobody is quite sure which way hotdog rolls.) In fact, it would be sexist to treat the gals any different than their guy counterparts, now wouldn't it?

"Different strokes for different folks?"

g'nite and g'bye.

deepspace's picture
deepspace 5 days 18 hours ago
#40

Riverplunge #33: Well-stated and very reasonable suggestions. Too bad Republican reprobates in Congress aren't as reasonable.

Meanwhile, Bob Corker in an interview with one of Robert Reich's Republican sources, a retired politician who stays abreast of the shenanigans in Congress, said that along with the Democrats and the Independents virtually every Republican on the Hill is totally freaked out that this madman has the nuclear codes and can launch a nuke within minutes with no outside legal constraint. While the rest of us are arguing over popguns, this fool has his little finger in the trigger of the biggest gun of all.

Yes, in the end, the pivotal problem with the lack of sane and rational gun regulations isn't necessarily Antonin Scalia's gross misinterpretation of the Second Amendment so much as it is all the NRA bribery money sloshing around Congress. Unfortunately, the People are left out of the loop, arguing and fighting among themselves over the lesser aspects of this seemingly intractable problem of mass shootings with high-powered, military-grade weaponry.

Haha, would love to rant further in that regard, but after all of the self-inflicted entanglements above, my writing practice sessions for the day, possibly the month, have finally come to a merciful end for all concerned.

Sleep tight ...if you can. (Try not to think of the unibrow bomber's sweaty little pussy grabbers scrolling through the nuclear codes.)

Dianereynolds's picture
Dianereynolds 5 days 15 hours ago
#41

Large glasses of Jameson?

HotCoffee's picture
HotCoffee 5 days 8 hours ago
#42

Ds,

No fits on my end, and no hachets to bury. Just think your discriptions of posters are on about the same level as DT. If you find it fun...well maybe he does too.

No matter how a person posts it can always be attacked...thats easy, no references, references came from wrong place, references but no comment..etc. etc. etc.

Going into the substance beyond takes more effort.

Your post to me was fine and fair but then you just had to insult someone..

peace and good will....

HotCoffee's picture
HotCoffee 5 days 7 hours ago
#43

If you could, would you delete some memories you don't like and replace them with much better ones? How far are you willing to go to tweak your brain if doing so could give you super abilities?

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/this-startup-plans-to-put-chips-into-hum...

If we have a single payer Gov. health plan do you think that Mental Health pro's. could demand that you, me, we must have an upgrade? Would you accept that?

Dianereynolds's picture
Dianereynolds 5 days 6 hours ago
#44

Interesting link HotCoffee, thanks. I think a variation of this was tried back in the 1930's, 40's, and 50's when frontal lobotomies and shock therapy were in vogue. There may be some truth to the old saying "don't mess with Mother Nature".

HotCoffee's picture
HotCoffee 5 days 3 hours ago
#45

Diane,

I agree with you...I think there was much abuse and that's why so many asylums were shut down.

Ou812's picture
Ou812 5 days 2 hours ago
#46

Thanks HC

I read an article years ago in Wired magazine about a scientist in Great Britain who managed to hook up a disc drive to his nervous system. (This was when memory was stored on floppies). His goal was to be able to repeat the feelings associated with an event. At the time, he was only downloading his feelings. When he wanted to relive the experience, he would hook up the electrodes from the disc drive to strategic points on his body, pop the floppy into the disc drive, and away he went. Eventually, he wanted to sell these experiences to the public.... Want to experience what it feels like to jump out of an airplane. You would buy the disc, hook up the electrodes, lay back and enjoy....virtual reality taken to a new level.

HotCoffee's picture
HotCoffee 4 days 23 hours ago
#47

Thanks ou812,

I had a discussion about words one time and how words have a different meaning to people. To talk about health care for instance....health care would mean one thing to a person 60 who just had a heart attack, but something different to a person in their 20's who just wants a yearly checkup.

So who decides what health care really is? Does the government get to decide if you will be vacinated? Do you get to decide for yourself and your family? From my perspective it

seems more & more the government wants to be the decider. So beyond how health care will be provided...what do we want from health care? Mental illness also seems to be gainng catagories...do you think most mental health proffessionals know what they are doing or not? I don't have the answers but I do have questions.

Ou812's picture
Ou812 4 days 15 hours ago
#48

I agree, age of the individual is a huge factor. So is an individuals attitude toward health care. I believe the more choices available for anything, healthcare included, makes a better society. Isn't that what diversity is all about?

I don't know enough about mental health to have an opinion. Since it is an area where results are difficult to measure, it's ripe for fraud.

To use a baseball analogy, it's government's job to call balls & strikes. It's the citizens right to live their lives. It's not the umpires nor the government's job to decide the outcome.

Dianereynolds's picture
Dianereynolds 4 days 14 hours ago
#49

Great question HotCoffee. I have a theory that anytime the government wants to decide what is good for you and they fund “professionals” that make all their money by always agreeing with the source of their income or the funding stops, the results are questionable to say the least. Obamacare, combined with the unusually slow recovery from the 2009 recession, put Medicaid and SS disability on the rocks. At this point in time there may not be a solution other than 100% government controlled healthcare. They can fund it with something like a 20% national healthcare sales tax on everything purchased.

Legend 4 days 14 hours ago
#50

You mean the Great Recession that started in 2007. Caused by banksters, derivatives, cutting of revenues (taxes for the wealthy) and massive increases in Defense spending. Are we repeating that? Seems like the Republican plan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession_in_the_United_States

Let's see what we can do for Medicaid and SS disability. The Republicans just passed a budget that cut Medicaid by $1.5 Trillion and SS by $0.5 Trillion. That should really help.

Trump Is Using Racist White People To Make The Rich Richer

There is this whole mythology that Donald Trump came to power because 53% of white women voted for him, because 66% of white working men who didn't have a college degree voted for him.

That may be, but those are not his constituents. Those are his suckers. Those are his rubes.

Latest Headlines

Who rejected United States-North Korea peace talks?

There were conflicting reports on Sunday regarding a recent proposal for United States-North Korea peace talks which was allegedly made before North Korea"s recent nuclear test

U.K. Pound Falls As Markets Get Brexit Jitters

Bloomberg said on Monday the pound had sustained its biggest fall against the dollar in 11 months

Clinton: I'll defend Israel but push for 'two-state solution

Hillary Clinton believes both Republican candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz "missed the mark" with their approach to the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict
From Cracking the Code:
"Thom Hartmann ought to be bronzed. His new book sets off from the same high plane as the last and offers explicit tools and how-to advice that will allow you to see, hear, and feel propaganda when it's directed at you and use the same techniques to refute it. His book would make a deaf-mute a better communicator. I want him on my reading table every day, and if you try one of his books, so will you."
Peter Coyote, actor and author of Sleeping Where I Fall
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"In an age rife with media-inspired confusion and political cowardice, we yearn for a decent, caring, deeply human soul whose grasp of the problems confronting us provides a light by which we can make our way through the quagmire of lies, distortions, pandering, and hollow self-puffery that strips the American Dream of its promise. How lucky we are, then, to have access to the wit, wisdom, and willingness of Thom Hartmann, who shares with us here that very light, grown out of his own life experience."
Mike Farrell, actor, political activist, and author of Just Call Me Mike and Of Mule and Man
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann seeks out interesting subjects from such disparate outposts of curiosity that you have to wonder whether or not he uncovered them or they selected him."
Leonardo DiCaprio, actor, producer, and environmental activist