Another Kill Spree.

[Seth]

I usually obsess over questions like, "Who knew this guy", "Did he really have no contact with the world", "What kind of priors are we looking at", "Was he recently released from a mental health facility, a prison", all of these questions seem more useful to me in these situations than just calling for guns to be banned.

I agree, mostly.
I'm not really into banning anything, but it seems to me that an appropriate degree of control would be a good idea.
Of course to some, an "appropriate degree" of control regarding guns is "none".

The appropriate degree of control regarding the right to keep and bear arms is "you get to exercise it to an unlimited extent in a peaceable manner right up until you do something with your arms that disqualifies you from possessing them."

[pErvinalia]

I thought you were going to barricade yourself up on your farm and shoot the machine gun wielding tax men who would inevitably come for all your money.

[Seth]

I thought you were going to barricade yourself up on your farm and shoot the machine gun wielding tax men who would inevitably come for all your money.

Nah. Not necessary. I'm now out of the system and have made my very last income tax payment. From now on I live off the proceeds of the sale of the ranch, have no income and thus need file no more returns, and have disappeared from the federal radar through careful planning and execution of a privacy program.

But, if they come for my guns, they'll get them...168 to 750 grains at a time.

[MrJonno]

Interest on savings is taxable income surely?

[Seth]

Interest on savings is taxable income surely?

That's why my money is in non-interest bearing accounts, cash, and gold. Money market accounts are offering less than 1/2 percent, so the pittance I get in interest isn't worth having to file a return to report.

[JimC]

I usually obsess over questions like, "Who knew this guy", "Did he really have no contact with the world", "What kind of priors are we looking at", "Was he recently released from a mental health facility, a prison", all of these questions seem more useful to me in these situations than just calling for guns to be banned.

I agree, mostly.
I'm not really into banning anything, but it seems to me that an appropriate degree of control would be a good idea.
Of course to some, an "appropriate degree" of control regarding guns is "none".

Exactly. Contrary to hysteria from some, people on this side of the gun debate are not about "banning guns", but examine whether benefits would accrue from more restrictions on the type of person allowed to own firearms, and the nature of those firearms. It can be perfectly true that a large majority of gun-owners are responsible, and commit no crimes with their guns, but a tiny minority can have a dreadful effect.

The other part of the debate is exposing the bizarre motivations of the lunatic end of the gun lobby, with their extremist hype about "the blood of tyrants". Hitler was not (and could never have been) defeated by the uprising of a collection of Germanic citizen Seths, but by the mass mobilisation of opposing states.

[Seth]

I usually obsess over questions like, "Who knew this guy", "Did he really have no contact with the world", "What kind of priors are we looking at", "Was he recently released from a mental health facility, a prison", all of these questions seem more useful to me in these situations than just calling for guns to be banned.

I agree, mostly.
I'm not really into banning anything, but it seems to me that an appropriate degree of control would be a good idea.
Of course to some, an "appropriate degree" of control regarding guns is "none".

Exactly. Contrary to hysteria from some, people on this side of the gun debate are not about "banning guns", but examine whether benefits would accrue from more restrictions on the type of person allowed to own firearms, and the nature of those firearms. It can be perfectly true that a large majority of gun-owners are responsible, and commit no crimes with their guns, but a tiny minority can have a dreadful effect.

The other part of the debate is exposing the bizarre motivations of the lunatic end of the gun lobby, with their extremist hype about "the blood of tyrants". Hitler was not (and could never have been) defeated by the uprising of a collection of Germanic citizen Seths, but by the mass mobilisation of opposing states.

The first thing Hitler did when he took power was to take the guns away from the citizenry, beginning with the Jews, using the same specious "public safety" argument you use. If Germans, and particularly German Jews had refused to give up their arms, they could have put Hitler down before he gained sufficient power to do what he did. But Germans of the time were a population of long-term slaves to their government, and had been trained for hundreds of years to be obedient and do what their leaders told them to do rather than being independent and willing to stand against tyranny and genocide. That's not the American psyche, or at least it wasn't. Now with the dependent class approaching 50 percent of the population, we may be in grave danger of going down the same road as Hitler, and therefore all the more need for patriots to be well-armed and prepared to take out any would-be tyrant before things get out of control.

[rainbow]

That's not the American psyche, or at least it wasn't. Now with the dependent class approaching 50 percent of the population, we may be in grave danger of going down the same road as Hitler, and therefore all the more need for patriots to be well-armed and prepared to take out any would-be tyrant before things get out of control.

Explain again how killing some unarmed Sikhs will prevent tyranny?

[Seth]

That's not the American psyche, or at least it wasn't. Now with the dependent class approaching 50 percent of the population, we may be in grave danger of going down the same road as Hitler, and therefore all the more need for patriots to be well-armed and prepared to take out any would-be tyrant before things get out of control.

Explain again how killing some unarmed Sikhs will prevent tyranny?

Stupid is as stupid does, and if you need that question answered, you're too stupid to live, okay?

[pErvinalia]

I usually obsess over questions like, "Who knew this guy", "Did he really have no contact with the world", "What kind of priors are we looking at", "Was he recently released from a mental health facility, a prison", all of these questions seem more useful to me in these situations than just calling for guns to be banned.

I agree, mostly.
I'm not really into banning anything, but it seems to me that an appropriate degree of control would be a good idea.
Of course to some, an "appropriate degree" of control regarding guns is "none".

Exactly. Contrary to hysteria from some, people on this side of the gun debate are not about "banning guns", but examine whether benefits would accrue from more restrictions on the type of person allowed to own firearms, and the nature of those firearms. It can be perfectly true that a large majority of gun-owners are responsible, and commit no crimes with their guns, but a tiny minority can have a dreadful effect.

The other part of the debate is exposing the bizarre motivations of the lunatic end of the gun lobby, with their extremist hype about "the blood of tyrants". Hitler was not (and could never have been) defeated by the uprising of a collection of Germanic citizen Seths, but by the mass mobilisation of opposing states.

The first thing Hitler did when he took power was to take the guns away from the citizenry, beginning with the Jews, using the same specious "public safety" argument you use. If Germans, and particularly German Jews had refused to give up their arms, they could have put Hitler down before he gained sufficient power to do what he did. But Germans of the time were a population of long-term slaves to their government, and had been trained for hundreds of years to be obedient and do what their leaders told them to do rather than being independent and willing to stand against tyranny and genocide. That's not the American psyche, or at least it wasn't. Now with the dependent class approaching 50 percent of the population, we may be in grave danger of going down the same road as Hitler, and therefore all the more need for patriots to be well-armed and prepared to take out any would-be tyrant before things get out of control.

Jeez, I thought Obama was a communist. What? Now he's a Nazi too?

[Svartalf]

So basically, the answer to Raibow's question is "it won't".

Beside, remind me, are you a democrat? Because if the country is going to slide down Godwin Way, GOP in charge are the ones who are going to give the push... Their "my way or the highway" totalitarian speech is clue enough.

[JimC]

When clinically insane paranoiacs have guns, and a belief system that views government as the enemy, we have Waco's waiting to happen...

Bring on the purple Kool-Aid, it"s a rocky road ahead...

[pErvinalia]

For some reason he is a libertarian who identifies with the Repubs. The same repubs who are actually for big government (despite all the bullshit rhetoric they spout) and gross invasions of civil liberties and privacy (not that the dems are much if any better; Yes I know that the Obama admin is actually the worst yet).