Fairweather

The police, generally speaking, have no political agenda--although a few metropolitan police chiefs certainly do. My belief is that police should be more than "law enforcement." They should integrate themselves with the communities and people they serve. My harping notwithstanding, I like cops on bicycles for this very reason. As for the criminal armed with an AR rifle, well, we just don't see this very often--except, of course, in recent mass shootings. And I would point out that our well-armed police forces have been largely ineffective responding to these tragedies. I would propose that the gun culture has been just as effective ginning up sales in the law enforcement business segment as they have with civilians. Do you believe our "well-equipped" police should have drones hovering routinely over our cities? To me, this sounds like a very bad idea. Again, my opinion, police departments should not look like this:

While it's impossible to deny the problems this country has meting out equal justice, I'm more worried about the militarization of law enforcement. Of course the police unions, mayors, chiefs, etc. regularly claim they are "outgunned" on the street, and this is why they need armored vehicles, drones, helicopter gunships, and military tactics to take down a convenience store robber armed with a machine-stamped .25 caliber piece of junk (or a native-American wood carver armed with a knife). And of course, they always run that video from years back of the Hollywood bank robbers who were, in fact, armed with illegal weapons to justify the notion that we the people, for all intents and purposes, need soldiers on our streets. Police shouldn't be acting like soldiers, IMO. If it walks like a duck, flanks like a duck, shoots like a duck, or hovers like a duck...

Your friend and mentor, TTK, believes that felons should remain franchised--even while serving their sentence. Should these felons keep their guns too? And at what point should someone who has been declared mentally unstable/deficient/whatever have their right to own a gun restored? Never? If I recall, the gun purchase form says something like "have you ever been declared mentally..." We may very well be talking past each other here, but all of our rights deserve a strong defense. Even the ones that are an affront to our sensibilities.

My mistake, I guess. I guess you agree with me re: gun control. Regarding denying one right but not others: you mean like, taking away a drunk driver's driver license but letting keep his right to vote? I guess you're right, it's not consistent. But why should it be? Why should you have to lose all of your rights all at once? Why not lose just some, depending on what your infraction is? I dunno, I guess I don't understand what you're asking. Not trying to dodge, I just don't get what you're asking. For the record, though, I typically don't like systems wherein somebody can't earn their rights back. I don't know if that's relevant but I'll throw it out there. Rob, when we say "rights" within the legal context that we're discussing, we mean constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. You keep trying to draw comps to driving--because it's easy. But, c'mon, you can't possibly be this dense. Seriously?

Sure, you just disagree with any effective means of enforcing limits on gun ownership for felons. Like universal background checks. I do not know how I feel about convicted felons and voting, I guess I don't know enough about it. I mean, I know the basics -- felons can't vote until their rights are restored? However, I am not aware of any law that prevents the mentally ill from voting. Is that common? 1.) Please do show me where I've ever opposed universal background checks. I'd love to see it. (I certainly do oppose gun registration.) 2.) You're missing the point (no, probably dodging it) re voting rights. In what way is denying certain people one right while upholding their other rights consistent? I'd like to hear your thoughts. I can guess what they are, so you might want to think it through carefully. (Which, I realize, is not something you're accustomed to doing.)

Reading comprehension, Rob. I've never anywhere said that the mentally ill or felons should have their 2nd Amendment rights in full. Let me ask you this: do you believe that the mentally ill and/or convicted felons should have their voting rights left intact?

Yes, Prole, and if I recall correctly you once described both Republican Spain and the German Wiemar Republic (est. 1919!) as your political ideals. Who wouldda thought you were so vicious!

but the SCOTUS already ruled that controls on gun ownership is not unconstitutional. Another moment of cognitive dissonance? Just clench your teeth, it'll pass. Yes they did--in a round about way. But in the Heller 2008 decision, they clearly defined gun ownership as an individual right. Rob, TTK, & Co. can parse that sentence and semicolon in the 2nd until the cows come home, but it's a done deal. (BTW, Ben, this same decision also rendered DC's ban on handguns unconstitutional.) Anyhow, Rob can tell us all that he has no authoritarian bent, but the logic that flows from his belief system in pretty easy to follow: permits for the press, speech, petition, association, and even, perhaps, religion along with his regulation of the second freedom. Fact is, Rob is a sheltered Seattle simpleton who has no clue how or where he stands on much of anything.

One of my Ed Abbey favorites: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Of course, people with guns kill more people. But that's only natural. It's hard. But it's fair."

Mr Ben, you are wise beyond your years.

I have zero interest in outlawing guns -- I just want to see them properly regulated with mandatory universal background checks, training and licensing: just like we have with cars (which are another possibly lethal implement which has been very successfully regulated) As a gun owner myself, I cant even begin to fathom why any rational individual would be against universal background checks and licensing. Imagine if we treated cars like we treat guns. Shudder! Cars are probably the single most heavily regulated thing we own... guns are largely unregulated... cars kill more people than guns, even if you factor in suicide. They kill more people unnaturally than anything, for that matter. If you leave suicide out of the equation, I think it's like 3:1, in fact. I'm not sure how your car analogy is supporting your argument for regulation There's also that pesky constitution thing that Rob & Co. can't get past. Guns are a protected right; cars aren't.

Rob's stat is BS.

Not sure who this was directed at, but you're preaching to the choir if you're talking to me. Pro gun. "Changing" was meant as a noun, in this instance, but was left intentionally muddy such that it would lure in all the usual suspects as a transitive verb.

Funny. Tell us, please, how many children have you raised? I know more than a few "kids" in their 20s who are smart, well-educated--and armed to the teeth. Your gun-grabbing agenda is going exactly nowhere in this generation or the next.

Hey, China's not on your chart! No matter, I suspect that gun deaths there are more of a state thang. Thank God their people are safe though.

[img:center]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Rtc2.gif[/img]

I've always wanted to see a video of a shock-loaded boot-axe belay. I still see climbers using them over sagging bridges from time. My guess: fail.

Pretty terrifying. A useful and sobering video/post. But I wonder if it's a completely legit test. The length of rope between faller and arrester is pretty short and, hence, there isn't much dynamism in the system. I've held several "punch thorough" type crevasse falls standing up--with 37-50 meters of single dynamic rope. But I'm still not sure if these anecdotes are completely useful either either. Also, in the video the arrester is facing toward the faller in almost every example--a pose that requires him to twist around pre-arrest and isn't how it usually goes down. Still, getting drug over the lip would be absolutely terrifying and I think about this often when I'm on a glacier with only one other partner. Thanks for the post.

I'll have to admit to being conflicted about government regulation/elimination of trans fats. Still, regulating or banning an ingredient in the private sector with cause in this manner is what government is for. What they are not for, IMO, is saying "we are banning this-or-that because it puts a financial strain on a healthcare system that we now totally control." One is a narrow door--the other is wide open.

Why do we have laws telling people how to drive and shit, too? I mean, every man is an island and nothing I do affects anyone else! Regulating how people drive is quite a bit different than telling them what they can put into their bodies, no? For example, we recently legalized pot here in Washington State--a measure I supported. Are you saying we should reconsider this? Pot good--fast food bad? Cigarettes bad--sodomy good? Trans fats bad--100,000 prescription deaths/year is a-ok? It gets complicated. Not something I'd expect the Free Lunch Party aka the Party of Simple Solutions for Simple People to be able to unravel. Still, with their insatiable need to control human behavior--a desire that probably exceeds even that of the evangelical right--this little exercise is certainly all about wasted keystrokes.

Uh oh. Sounds like someone's just a little bitter... Still, why is either sector telling folks how to live a good idea?

Some folks handle freedom responsibly--and some don't.

Ha, are you Free Lunchers still on the Koch Bros thing? I thought you had redirected your requisite hate to some other person or object by this time. Well, anyhow, no I don't like private employers telling their employees what they can and can't do either. Not one bit. I used to work for one. You, on the other hand, seem more than willing to allow your precious government to "nudge" its citizens to do God-knows-what-next. Of course there is a difference: The private company can simply deny you a job--government can tax you out of your home or put you in prison if it fits the latest narrative. You see, it's really not so much the healthcare equity thing as it is the next thing--and the thing after that. You once mentioned that you're a big fan of "agrarian reform." Terrifying.

(*The role of Doughnut Guy will be played by Marky Mark.) [video:youtube]VAFwL-JDw7Y