ivan Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 The question that remains Ivan, is why they (Mexico and not us) are so fucked up when guns are readily available here, and they have had tight gun restrictions since 1968? Answer that in your own mind to your own satisfaction before you read on please. Hmmmm? that's actually easy -you can have all the tight guns laws you want, but if your large industrial neighbors don't, and you have shitty border control and a law enforcement culture that's entreprenurial in nature, and a giant commercial opportunity that can be only realized w/ planes, helicopters, ww2-era diesel submarines, and machine guns, then the weapons will be present no matter what Since Scott did the thread revival I'll bring it again. Your answer imply s that this open border only exists with the US, and that if our government could somehow strip away our ability to own firearms all would be well with the Mexicans? I'm calling bullshit if that's your supposition. Currently, 90 percent of the illegal grenades in Mexico are smuggled in from Guatemala. You don't figure that the Mexicans can just turn around and get their guns form there or Pakistan? BTW, as long as we're on this rant. There are 2 kidnappings a DAY in Mexico. Every day. Couple of months ago, an estimated 150,000-200,000 Mexican citizens rallied in Mexico City in outrage and anger to protest what they believe to be police involvement and collusion in these daily kidnappings. LINK to August 2008 story Of course, the police have weapons and can and regularly do victimize the population, they are fortunate to have the very gun laws which you want here. Somehow, by magic perhaps, not allowing US citizens weapons will be able to stop the traffic of drugs coming in and money going out? Getting guns out of honest Americans hands will also be able to cease the money and drugs across the border that is the root issue? ..and cutting off US guns will do what to that dynamic again? It's a power play and a lie. You're buying into their bullshit. Don't believe a word of it Ivan turn off the news they're feeding you and use your own thinking. i was not implying that the guns come only from the usa - incidentally, i'm not for cutting off guns here either, at least not beyond sensible restrictions such as not selling children bazookas or allowing giant wild-west arms bazaars - i have no problem w/ hunting or self-protection, and am sure you could do both w/ 19th century era technology my point was that guns will always appear in lethal #'s when an economic vacoum is formed for giant criminal enterprises to take advantage over, especially in a country that already has a # of other problems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 ....i have no problem w/ hunting or self-protection.... That's not what I'm talking about at all. Judge Alex Kozinski, a Jewish refugee from Eastern Europe, summed up my argument in his dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer: "The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." Now as far as the Mexicans hell goes, since the "reasonable" guns laws of 1968 were passed, they are fortunate to have political control by the military and police over their people. The people, however...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 ....i have no problem w/ hunting or self-protection.... That's not what I'm talking about at all. Judge Alex Kozinski, a Jewish refugee from Eastern Europe, summed up my argument in his dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer: "The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failedwhere the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." Now as far as the Mexicans hell goes, since the "reasonable" guns laws of 1968 were passed, they are fortunate to have political control by the military and police over their people. The people, however...... i'm well aware of your "we need guns to preserve democracy" line and i just disagree - i think the right to bear arms stems from our right to protect ourselves from criminals and provide food for ourselves through hunting, not to overthrow the governmetn whenever it pleases us (hey, the anniversary of the oklahoma city bombing is today - malzatov! - those guys had the same idea about guns as you ) i have no idea of mexico's gun laws, so i have no idea how "reasonable" they are - do they ban everything? that would not be reasonable. to take your jewish quote above - do you seriously think the jews would have done anything than throw up the slightest of roadblocks against nazi panzers with light arms, the only "reasonable" weapons private citizens should have access to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Why is Mexico so fucked up? You are honestly arguing it's because they can't get guns? Not an absence of an effective judiciary, centuries of wealth concentration in an out of touch urban elite, rampant corruption and miserable public health? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 Why is Mexico so fucked up? You are honestly arguing it's because they can't get guns? Not an absence of an effective judiciary, centuries of wealth concentration in an out of touch urban elite, rampant corruption and miserable public health? rampant aeombic dysentry hardly helps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Why is Mexico so fucked up? You are honestly arguing it's because they can't get guns? Let's be fair. You, as well as I, know that he was simply stating that the converse was false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 to take your jewish quote above - do you seriously think the jews would have done anything than throw up the slightest of roadblocks against nazi panzers with light arms, the only "reasonable" weapons private citizens should have access to? 2 words for the graduate: WARSAW UPRISING. The Jews had been stripped of weapons, identified, registered, regulated and often tricked into co-operation (happy postcards sent back to remaining family members in Hungry for instance). What they scrounged and put together when it was already too late helped them to create a modern Masada and stop the Wehrmacht with their Panzers for a month at least. So it matters not what I think. It matters only what is. What you read, and what you watch on TV isn't always what is real and true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 i am of course familiar w/ the warsaw uprising - the jews could have had all the weapons they wanted and it wouldva turned out the same - maybe if they'd had rpgs, artillery and fighter planes they could have turned it around, but again, i don't think any of those are reasonable weapons for john q public to have, and i find it inexplicably bizarre that anyone could feel differnetly on that point. and speaking of masada (the anniversary of its conclusion was last week), remember how it turned out? exactly the way the nazis wanted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkporwit Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Ummm, the Warsaw Uprising != Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Warsaw Ghetto Uprising == Spring of 1943 Warsaw Uprising == Summer of 1944 Not that the point made by Ivan isn't similar -- they both ended pretty much in utter failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraysovereign Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 nice to see us accepting the responsibility, now why don't we do something about it? the last thing giant criminal drug-cartels want is the for their lucrative trade-item to be legalized - if we really want to destroy them and end the murder of cops and civilian bystanders and the corruption of local, state and national governments in damn near every country in the western hemisphere, why on earth would we NOT want to do just that? legalizing all drugs certainly won't suddenly make the world a perfect place, it won't be a hippy-paradise, and surely there will be problems w/ addiction and under-age use, but how could they be worse than now? and certainly the other problems mentioned above will be improved, not to mention an increase in tax reciepts on the sale and the elimination of a very costly enforcement/incarceration system? if this idea can't gain traction in these economic conditions, when could it? Portugal is having some success with their "soft-on-drugs" approach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrov Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 To think this used to be a drug decriminalization thread, not a gun criminalization thread ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Sorry, of course Warsaw was badly dismembered later as well. I was responding to his "the Jews didn't have a chance against the Nazi" thing. Which - they were all good Jews until is was too late. They had a great democracy, and then they saw some "reasonable" laws passed with the rise of Hitler. Why would anyone not support the motherland unless they were a traitor after all? "The message is simple: Disarmed people are neither free nor safe - they become the criminals' prey and the tyrants' playthings. When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, however, thousands and millions of innocents die. " Lots of activity last century. Ottoman Empire -gun laws in 1911 preceded the Armenian exterminations 1915. Then the Nazi gun restrictions followed by that hell. Soviet Union Red Army laws followed by that hell. First the Nationalists then the Communist when they took over in China passed gun laws in turn- quelling internal dissent and murdering anyone who doesn't "think" correctly, ie, like them. Cambodia passed reasonable restrictions by the Khmer Rouge and you know how that went. If not: rent "The Killing Fields" DVD to check it out. Sure, there's converse examples of ENGLAND and Australia. They passed laws that were anti-gun and they have not had governments gone bad ....yet. Somehow Ivan, you find it difficult to trust your fellow citizens: who are not seeking power to control you, yet you are willingly giving that to people twisted enough to embrace and seek that corrupting power. I'm not saying all politicians are that way, but if you check out my list, you will note that it only takes one or 2 bad power seeking apples to overturn a nice apple cart. I believe that felons should not be able to handle weapons of any sort. That is it. If they are found with them, they go to jail. That is not what is happening right now. Right now, the jails are full of otherwise normal people who did a drug bo-bo, so they are often letting out assholes who wish to perpetrate violence on us. That's not a good thing. Lock up the criminals and let honest people, like you and like me, free to go about our business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 if all people were as harmless as ivan, none would have to worry.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 True dat Pink. Is Switzerland then a nation of gun nuts? They have mandatory military service for all males over 20 years of age and when they get out they are all basically armed with machine guns. The whole nation. Not that there isn't laws in the country, but each Canon (think state) is different. Still, about everyone is armed to the teeth. They did this for political freedom. Evidently, they didn't trust the Hapsberg Kings as much as Ivan would have:-) "Over a soldier's career he also spends scattered days on mandatory equipment inspections and required target practice. Thus, in a 30-year mandatory military career, a Swiss man only spends about one year in direct military service. Following discharge from the regular army, men serve on reserve status until age 50 (55 for officers). By the Federal Constitution of 1874, military servicemen are given their first equipment, clothing and arms. After the first training period, conscripts must keep gun, ammunition and equipment an ihrem Wohnort ("in their homes") until the end of their term of service. Today, enlisted men are issued M57 automatic assault rifles and officers are given pistol, Each reservist is issued 24 rounds of ammunition in sealed packs for emergency use. (Contrary to Handgun Control's claim that "all ammunition must be accounted for," the emergency ammunition is the only ammo that requires accounting.) After discharge from service, the man is given a bolt rifle free from registration or obligation. Starting in the 1994, the government will give ex-reservists assault rifles. Officers carry pistols rather than rifles and are given their pistols the end of their service. When the government adopts a new infantry rifle, it sells the old ones to the public. Reservists are encouraged to buy military ammunition (7.5 and 5.6mm-5.56 mm in other countries-for rifles and 9 and 7.65 mm Luger for pistols, which is sold at cost by the government, for target practice Non-military ammunition for long-gun hunting and .22 Long Rifle (LR) ammo are not subsidised, but are subiect to no sales controls. Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as .38 Spl.) is registered at the time of sale. Swiss military ammo must be registered if bought at a private store, but need not be registered if bought at a range The nation's 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition. Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed. The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these weapons require an easily obtained cantonal license, and the weapons are registered, In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,00 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun. Besides subsidised military surplus, the Swiss can buy other firearms easily too. While long guns require no special purchase procedures, handguns are sold only to those with a Waffenerwerbsschien (purchase certificate) issued by a cantonal authority. A certificate is issued to every applicant over 18 who is not a criminal or mentally infirm. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 F'em if they can't handle their own internal security south of the border. The next thing they'll complain about is they don't like classic American culture like this gem: [video:youtube]Wd4mywgY35k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 if all people were as harmless as ivan, none would have to worry.... clearly you've never been out drinking w/ me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I think the worst punishment is knowing that all you old guys saw me naked. I just think you guys are all just perverts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 took you long enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 if all people were as harmless as ivan, none would have to worry.... clearly you've never been out drinking w/ me just please spare me the history lesson.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 if all people were as harmless as ivan, none would have to worry.... clearly you've never been out drinking w/ me just please spare me the history lesson.... no worries - when drinking i'm generally incapable of anythign other than profanity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 RE: drug policy Will changing the nature of crime and punishment fully address the root cause of the societal effects of drug abuse? For instance, if you apply Marx's Theory of Alienation, it is the economic system itself which is at fault and it follows that endemic drug abuse is a consequence of that loss of meaningfulness. Alternatively, our economic system may not be our oppressor as much as our liberator. And, it is just this liberation (represented as leisure time) that is the culprit. Government will not solve the societal problem by either limiting or enhancing liberty until individuals take initiative. For some people, drug use becomes the end in itself and they cease to create or seek meaning in their lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Or they take up climbing to find meaning. Eventually, this too becomes a crutch and a limiting factor in their lives. Eventually, you will find them posting monologues on the internet in an effort to enrich that emptiness with something beyond purely physical acts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted May 2, 2009 Author Share Posted May 2, 2009 life can be meaningful? given the size of current raging hangover, the most meaningful thing i can contemplate is throwing myself in an incinerator right about now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 I suppose it's the error of simplicity when the search for meaning becomes the essential human quest. Some of us are just horny bastards and gratification of bodily desire is the pinnacle. But, according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the quest leads to the culmination of a certain level of human fulfillment or self-actualization. Someone asked once about drug usage among climbers so I thought of a basic outline. I would broadly categorize usage into two groups: performance enhancing and recreational (non-performing enhancing). Performance enhancing: physiological effects leading to efficient body performance including concentration and alertness, normalization of sleeping patterns, etc. Recreational: relaxation or enjoyment after climb or during interlude; concurrent with climbing, (you fill in the blanks) There may be some crossover between the two groups. There's also the categories of self-medicated versus prescribed. Again, the line between the two can become blurred. Typically, regulated medications are prescribed to treat a specific condition however a medication can have a secondary effect that becomes beneficial in a particular environment, for example, Diamox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.