What gun control would you actually support?

[jefftk]

The first step is admit it...

This state is the epitome of what happens when government runs amok and does anything and everything the left asks. All the "they should", "there oughtta be a law" and "reasonable regulation", mantra of the left have collided into one big cluster!@#$ in this state.

Which is what we've been trying to tell you...

I have to give MA credit for one thing: I continue to find things that bewilder me about this place... Just when I think I've heard/seen the dumbest thing yet MA still manages to lower the bar.

The other day a guy at work told me his town (I forget which, started with a "B" I think...) requires a permit to install counter tops in your own home. And furthermore, if you get new counter tops and a tax assesor comes to take a look and notices it: well congratulations you get to donate more money.

Then just today I learned that tattoo parlors were illegal in MA from 1962 -2000....

 

[Bob P]

I'm not in that big of a rush, and I want to get a handgun first. I still have my eye on the S&W 1911.

I would urge you guys to separate "the left" from these Ma**h*** politicians, just like you urge me to separate you guys from George W and the modern Republican party. It would seem that most politicians are just power-hungry a**h***s, no matter what ideology they "claim" to be a part of.

Come out with us some time, you're more than welcome to try mine.

 

[cekim]

I'm not in that big of a rush, and I want to get a handgun first. I still have my eye on the S&W 1911.

I would urge you guys to separate "the left" from these Ma**h*** politicians, just like you urge me to separate you guys from George W and the modern Republican party. It would seem that most politicians are just power-hungry a**h***s, no matter what ideology they "claim" to be a part of.

Yes indeed, so the only question is how do you take away their punch bowl? Systematically limit the power of government at every turn. There is no other solution that works. No matter how enticing, efficient and fool-proof a government solution may appear, it should be avoided at all costs.

Yes, communities can do things individuals cannot, but "communities" should do these things by choice, not the edict of government.

 

[center442]

Tax free as well!

zbrod, Bill is only kidding. It's not really tax free. You have to declare it and pay the sales tax on it when you file your MA state tax return, so you can pay your MA income tax....something else you didn't have to pay in NH. You will be claiming any out-of-state purchases on your MA return, right? It is the law.

You're beginning to understand why so many people hate this state. I'll extend my congratulations to you on getting your LTC. Aren't you glad that you're restricted to Target and Hunting? That way if you ever go berserk and decide to shoot up a bus full of children your restricted license will stop you!

See why so many of us here hate the very idea of gun control legislation? I'm sure that giving discretionary licensing authority to local chiefs was considered "reasonable gun control" by legislators when it became law.

As to your desire for a S&W 1911, I think that's a fine choice. I like mine, and I think you'll enjoy yours. Best of luck to you!

 

[NHPatriot]

I'll go green soon, and probably join a shoot. I stopped by Four Seasons today but it was very crowded. I'm going up to NH this weekend so I won't be able to purchase anything until I get back.

I'm actually much more angry with Mass at moment for another reason. Aside from being hostile to guns, they are not very good to car owners. I bought a new car in NH on Thurs. I knew there was no getting around the sales tax (which will be about $1,000) but I didn't realize all of the other shit. I'm also going to have to pay an excise tax ($450) each year and, according to the dealer, also a "property tax" for another $450 or so, which I had not heard of. Of course, I also have to get my car inspected (even though it is brand new), have to get my insurance to stamp the form, and have to re-register it (for another $100 or so, even though I registered my old car 3 months ago). Of course, like most normal people I have a job, so this is a huge pain. Plus I can't do anything until the dealership sends me the Certificate of Origin, which will hopefully come before the 7 day grace period is up (which will probably result in fines).

I'm also going to have to procure new parking stickers (also gotten only 3 months ago for my old car). I've been using one of my visitor passes to park in the meantime, even though you are not supposed to use them for your own car I assumed they wouldn't actually check, and even so it is a different car. Silly me. I found two $50 tickets on my windshield, one for each day. I decided to drive right to the parking office to get a temp pass, but on Fridays they close at noon. So I'm probably going to have to keep getting tickets until Tues when I will have to take time off from work and go to the parking office, and hope that they erase a potential $250 in tickets. Actually, part of the reason I'm going to NH this weekend is so that I put my car somewhere that doesn't cost $50/day.

I hate this state.

This is the part I don't get. One of the fundamental tenets of a socialist government is crippling taxes and that whole pesky "from each according to ability to each according to his need". I would think if someone referred to themselves as a socialist there wouldn't be any complaints like this.

 

[z0mbi]

Yeah shouldn't you love paying taxes, dude?

Oh, wait... liberals only like to spend OTHER peoples money.

 

[Lamina]

Zbrod... I think you're probably a good kid. I just want to plant this little seed in your head...

Whenever you think it might be a good thing for the govt to intervene and "do something" about anything ask yourself these two questions...

Will "the govt" have to use force or coercion to "do something", or will it have to use force or coercion to fund "doing something"?

If so, are you willing to kick down the door of your neighbor to force them to comply with "doing something", or to force them to comply with paying for "doing something"?

Cause if answer one is yes and answer two is a no, then you really must ask why violence against your neighbor is okay with you, but only if someone else partakes in it.

That's why most of the "left" can ESAD. They're all violent, vile POS's, but live life rosy as long as someone else is breaking skulls and building utopia on their behalf.

 

[OfficerObie59]

My parents lean Democrat but are not very "political." My liberal views can probably be attributed more to George W. Bush than any life experiences that I can think of. I know you guys think I was just indoctrinated by my parents/school/etc, but honestly I think it comes from inside me, is just part of [my] sense of justice and fairness.

The desire for justice and fairness are not limited solely to liberals, and others would argue the liberal version of fairness--which is often codeword for economic equality--isn't fair at all. Furthermore, disliking the policies of George W. Bush is a weak (and I would say unenlightened) reason for going leftie.

To many of us, the political spectrum is more than just left and right--there are parts of the quinisential libertarian position on taxes that are aligned with the Tea Party movement, and positions on civil liberties that are in line with the ACLU (see pre-trial forfeiture, recording of police, etc.). Additionally, I'm a libertarian because I too believe in justice and fairness--but we fundamentally disagree on just how that fairness should be exercised. Liberals believe it's the government's job to make virtually every facet of life equal, which is their version of fair. But I think fairness is allowing me to keep what I've rightfully earned and what it rightfully mine, despite if others have less. One makes the best in life with the hand their dealt; it's not the government's job to stack the deck for the poor poker player.

I believe the government should minimally impede on my life and allow me the right to make my own way. If I fall on my face, that's on me. And the reason that's fair is because is if I look to the government to break that fall, they're taking the money from someone else who earned it fair and square. The government should be in the business of creating a fair enviornment through minimal taxation and regulations that allows natural human ambition to flourish. The governement should not be in the business of leveling the playing field for those who stumble, however unfortunate the circumstances might be. I'm all for giving them a helping hand, as long as it's voluntary (i.e., charity) and not forced from me every April 15th.

To get back to your gun control debate, to many here that fits squarely into our sense of justice and fairness. Should one need to protect himself, whether it be from a violent criminal or the government, how is is it fair or just to allow him to stand there and not have the ability to defend himself? How is it fair or just that a tyrranical government should be able to suppress my freedoms? How is it just or fair that a criminal gets to do me or my family harm? The RKBA is predicated on the notion that an armed citizenry can first deter--and if not, then repel--the actions all too natural to the darker inclinations of the human condition.

That to me is fair and just.

 

[Boghog1]

The desire for justice and fairness are not limited solely to liberals, and others would argue the liberal version of fairness--which is often codeword for economic equality--isn't fair at all. Furthermore, disliking the policies of George W. Bush is a weak (and I would say unenlightened) reason for going leftie.

To many of us, the political spectrum is more than just left and right--there are parts of the quinisential libertarian position on taxes that are aligned with the Tea Party movement, and positions on civil liberties that are in line with the ACLU (see pre-trial forfeiture, recording of police, etc.). Additionally, I'm a libertarian because I too believe in justice and fairness--but we fundamentally disagree on just how that fairness should be exercised. Liberals believe it's the government's job to make virtually every facet of life equal, which is their version of fair. But I think fairness is allowing me to keep what I've rightfully earned and what it rightfully mine, despite if others have less. One makes the best in life with the hand their dealt; it's not the government's job to stack the deck for the poor poker player.

I believe the government should minimally impede on my life and allow me the right to make my own way. If I fall on my face, that's on me. And the reason that's fair is because is if I look to the government to break that fall, they're taking the money from someone else who earned it fair and square. The government should be in the business of creating a fair enviornment through minimal taxation and regulations that allows natural human ambition to flourish. The governement should not be in the business of leveling the playing field for those who stumble, however unfortunate the circumstances might be. I'm all for giving them a helping hand, as long as it's voluntary (i.e., charity) and not forced from me every April 15th.

To get back to your gun control debate, to many here that fits squarely into our sense of justice and fairness. Should one need to protect himself, whether it be from a violent criminal or the government, how is is it fair or just to allow him to stand there and not have the ability to defend himself? How is it fair or just that a tyrranical government should be able to suppress my freedoms? How is it just or fair that a criminal gets to do me or my family harm? The RKBA is predicated on the notion that an armed citizenry can first deter--and if not, then repel--the actions all too natural to the darker inclinations of the human condition.

That to me is fair and just.

+1 great post

 

[mark056]

My parents lean Democrat but are not very "political." My liberal views can probably be attributed more to George W. Bush than any life experiences that I can think of. I know you guys think I was just indoctrinated by my parents/school/etc, but honestly I think it comes from inside me, is just part of [my] sense of justice and fairness. Just like with my love of rap and interest in guns, there were no external factors (that I know of) pushing me in that direction; actually, if anything the opposite was true.

What about George W. Bush made you decide or think that he was a conservative? He really wasn't, anymore than Barack Obama is a liberal, they are politicians. (Did you see that today the POTUS overruled the EPA on new emissions standards after listening to various lobbying groups) I think it is very important that we look less into labels and philosophy than we do the actions of our elected officials. In the course of a brief period of time, you have experienced the frustration of living in Massachusetts, especially with the situation of purchasing your new car out of state. I find it interesting that after 6 years of living here, you were unaware of the annual vehicle excise tax. This, BTW decreases on a pro rated basis as the vehicle ages. The parking ticket issue is interesting, because you are dealing with bureaucracy. By being presumptuous that "they" would not actually enforce parking regulations...I will grant you that parking whether enforcing public or private regulations, is a cash cow and an easy rule to enforce. Now granted thousands of vehicles go un- ticketed every day, but that is because it so easy and there are a wide variety of choices to choose from parking enforcement people have a plethora of opportunities. Welcome to Real World 101.

I think it is important to realize that we have had social engineering programs in this country since the Great Depression and we have had presidents and congresses that have been both left and right leaning, but in the main, government has gotten larger and yet we are seemingly plagued with more problems.

One could argue that our current president inherited a lot of problems, but the simple fact is that he enjoyed a Congress that until the mid-term elections was dominated by his party in both houses. Mr. Obama was elected on a campaign of promise, hope and change...yet we see little evidence of it. Leaders are supposed to solve problems and if he failed to see the magnitude of the issues and offer viable solutions, then he has failed as a leader.

Rather than say: "I am a liberal"...let's widen the discussion a bit, what do you think we should we do about:

1. Improving the quality of schools.
2. Getting people off of welfare
3. Stimulating the economy
4. Restoring jobs (which is related to number 3)

Precisely what is the role of government in our lives, and how do we change the human condition? The one major social change that was effected legally but still not socially has been the area of Civil Rights. Racial prejudice continues to flourish, but legal equality, if not social equality has been achieved to a very high degree, and that is at the center of the issue in any examination of attempts to change the way we act and respond to things. We can legislate behavior but we cannot legislate what is in the human heart.

For me, there are no true liberals or conservatives in politics. People who are driven to becoming a politician more out of ego and a desire for power than altruistic reasons. They may have started with a sense of doing good, but as Lord Acton said: "Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely" . All politicians have IMO "interests" which override any philosophy or ideology and these interests are driven by special interests and greed. There is really only one political party in this country with left and right wings (and even then the situation remains fluid).

Let me ask you this: what bad things happened to you personally under Bush? You started college, enjoyed a brilliant undergraduate career, and today because of your excellence in academic endeavors have secured a fairly high paying position as a first job in a time of high unemployment. What has government done for you, to improve your quality of life? It would seem to me, that as of late, it is only causing your quality of life to suffer a bit. It's easy to say: "well this is Massachusetts, it's different elsewhere." Well, to some degree or another it is the same everywhere. It's interesting, you come from New Hampshire which as a state values personal freedom and individual liberty more than in Massachusetts. You grew up in a so-called Red State or "free state" one of the reddest of the red states, and now you are complaining about Massachusetts which is the bluest of the "Blue States"...the very social programs and ideas that you say you embrace have been done on a state level for decades, yet you complain. I have trouble with this. Massachusetts is a model for what things are like when big government tries to socially engineer its populace. This is the way it is.

We can never be like the Western European Social Democracies for a variety of historical and cultural reasons and now we are seeing more turmoil and problems in Europe after 60 plus years of embracing that philosophy.

Finally, what have you done personally to help improve our society? Instead of getting a nice job in Cambridge after grad school why didn't you volunteer your services to Americorps, for instance? You could have gone to some of the impoverished areas of our nation and done public service. Do you volunteer to work with charitable organizations such as food pantries, or homeless shelters? I know, maybe you tutor inner city kids in math or computer science once a week, sharing your considerable intellect and knowledge with them? You went to New Hampshire and purchased a new car. Was that absolutely necessary? I don't know what kind of car you purchased or whether you needed a new one, but why didn't you buy a late model used one and contribute to a favorite charity with the left over money? You may in fact have done all of these things but I have my doubts. Instead, it is much easier to say: "well the government needs to do this" or "Obama inherited a mess and people aren't giving him a chance" when in fact he has failed as a leader (people respect the charisma of leadership even if they don't agree with a leader's policy. I really respected Ronald Reagan, but I certainly didn't agree with some of his policies, but he gave people hope, FDR gave people hope, JFK gave people hope...now we don't have any hope). We are merely adrift, rudderless and without purpose or direction. Why do you think that more government involvement in our lives would solve the problems that we face today?

You have probably never paid a substantial amount of income tax. Wait until April 15, 2012 and then you might question the role of government in our lives.

So Zach, what are you doing to effect change? That, to me is the essential question.

As an aside I have to give you credit for starting a megathread with some of the best and worst posts I have ever seen on this forum. That is no simple feat in and of itself.

Mark

 

[ARV]

Let us pretend for a minute, that gun control works, and they get their way. ALL guns are banned, and ever single gun in existence is destroyed. There are NO firearms left. Would you like to see the result?






My point:




Where there's a will there's a way. Until you can regulate human will & desire, gun control will never, and can never have any effect, other than to control those that can self regulate themselves, and comply with the law.

 

[cekim]

Let us pretend for a minute, that gun control works, and they get their way. ALL guns are banned, and ever single gun in existence is destroyed. There are NO firearms left. Would you like to see the result?

View attachment 20231
View attachment 20232
View attachment 20233
View attachment 20234

My point:

View attachment 20235


Where there's a will there's a way. Until you can regulate human will & desire, gun control will never, and can never have any effect, other than to control those that can self regulate themselves, and comply with the law.

You missed the ones made in PRISONS - some of the most secure "gun free" zones on earth:

There are more - these are NOT the "fake" guns that have been used in jail-breaks, these are functional, projectile firing firearms.

With access to basic machine tools outside of prison you could obviously do much more...

 

[zbrod]

These are some great posts, and since you guys went through the trouble of writing them I definitely intend to answer them. Labor Day weekend has been pretty chaotic so far, I'll be sure to respond when I have some time. Thanks for the insight.

 

[cekim]

These are some great posts, and since you guys went through the trouble of writing them I definitely intend to answer them. Labor Day weekend has been pretty chaotic so far, I'll be sure to respond when I have some time. Thanks for the insight.

Just moving from one communist rally to the next like a social butterfly?

 

[CosmicIrony]

Just moving from one communist rally to the next like a social butterfly?

I wouldn't call NES a communist rally

 

[cekim]

I wouldn't call NES a communist rally

Some recent threads would suggest otherwise.

 

[bigjim]

absolutely none i remember being about 13 years old and finaly convinceing my mother that i could have a shotgun to go hunting with we drove up to the kittery tradeing post in maine and i picked out a mossburg 500 and we went to pay for it back then i thought that the 2nd amendment as it was taught in school accualy meant you had the right to buy a firearm boy was i wrong

as soon as we get to the counter he says are you from me or nh we say no from ma he then tells us that if we lived in anothe state we could buy the gun and bring it home that day but because we live in ma we have to apply for a fid or ltc with the police then we can come and buy the gun

lets just say i was pissed and to this verey day i hold nothing but comtempt for masachussets gun laws and it pisses me off that i have to have any kind of permit to buy a firearm

 

[Fixxah]

This is quite possibly the dumbest 54 page thread I've encountered, I'm glad I didn't read it from the beginning...

Go with a higher post count per page and it isn't as bad. It's only 27 pages for me.

Sent from the Hyundai of the droids, the Samsung Replenish, using Tapatalk.

 

[Fixxah]

I should just walk around with a white board and draw pictures of things i want to communicate about.

Just don't use Sharpies, they won't erase. I tried.

Sent from the Hyundai of the droids, the Samsung Replenish, using Tapatalk.

 

[Blitz1]

Just don't use Sharpies, they won't erase. I tried.

Sent from the Hyundai of the droids, the Samsung Replenish, using Tapatalk.

You're not supposed to use them on your computer screen dude.

To the op, You've been offered several opportunities to see what we're about here. Free.

Put up or shut up.

 

[pdm]

Just don't use Sharpies, they won't erase. I tried.

Sent from the Hyundai of the droids, the Samsung Replenish, using Tapatalk.

Write over the sharpie with a dry erase marker and it will erase.

 

[zbrod]

Let me try to respond to this one first. I got in a accident yesterday with my new car and so have been busy dealing with that [sad2] But that's a whole other story.

What about George W. Bush made you decide or think that he was a conservative? He really wasn't, anymore than Barack Obama is a liberal, they are politicians.

You're right, but he claimed he was a conservative, and during those years that is what I used as a baseline for conservatism (or Republicanism). I saw what he was doing and what Republicans were doing, and it was pretty easy to conclude that I was a liberal Democrat. I didn't know at the time how bad Democrats were because they were in the minority. All I knew was that I aligned with them on the checklist: gay rights, abortion, unions, etc. Basically, they weren't Republicans.

That's largely how I framed my politics, as American Democrats vs. American Republicans. Looking through Wikipedia, it is obvious that the various spectrum definitions are quite complicated (liberal vs conservative, progressive vs conservative, left vs right, libertarian vs authoritarian, capitalism vs socialism, etc). It seems that most people here are libertarian as opposed to authoritarian, and on that spectrum I believe I am similarly aligned, as are many "liberals", as we've been calling them.

I find it interesting that after 6 years of living here, you were unaware of the annual vehicle excise tax.

I've only technically been a MA resident for 3 months, and thus have avoided most of the bullshit.

The parking ticket issue is interesting, because you are dealing with bureaucracy. By being presumptuous that "they" would not actually enforce parking regulations..

What is infuriating is the complete lack of consideration for the "spirit" of the regulation. If they looked up my plate number, which I'm sure they did, they would have seen that I do in fact live in the area, that this is a new car with the same plates and so I'm obviously in the process of transferring registration. But they nail me on a technicality, not to keep non-residents from parking, but to get money. The fact that they make it so difficult for someone (who works) who is trying to follow the law, to get their affairs in order after buying a new car is infuriating.

I think it is important to realize that we have had social engineering programs in this country since the Great Depression and we have had presidents and congresses that have been both left and right leaning, but in the main, government has gotten larger and yet we are seemingly plagued with more problems.

The Depression era programs (Social Security, etc) are usually held up as the shining examples of successful social programs. I think government is one of those things that you don't notice when it's doing things right, but only when it's doing things wrong. I think like every element of human civilization, it is an institution that has its share of problems but that we are continually improving, and serves an important purpose. I think we have a bad habit of romanticizing the past (for ex the 50's), not realizing that so many things have in fact improved. I think the calls to "get rid of government" are missing the point. Yes it needs to be constantly improved (sometimes by revolution), but it deserves some credit for what is does right.

One could argue that our current president inherited a lot of problems, but the simple fact is that he enjoyed a Congress that until the mid-term elections was dominated by his party in both houses. Mr. Obama was elected on a campaign of promise, hope and change...yet we see little evidence of it. Leaders are supposed to solve problems and if he failed to see the magnitude of the issues and offer viable solutions, then he has failed as a leader.

I agree, for the most part. I think the Republicans have been extremely obstructionist and in very bad faith, putting politics before the good of the country. Obama could have proposed a federal ban on all gun control measures, and Republicans still would have filibustered it. But Obama and the Democrats did not stand up to them, they just kept backing down, and that is inexcusable. Plus, Obama's habit of surrounding himself with Wall Street henchmen and former Bush officials sends a clear message that hope and change are not on the way.

Rather than say: "I am a liberal"...let's widen the discussion a bit, what do you think we should we do about:

1. Improving the quality of schools.

This is a tough one. I'm inclined to say we should pay teachers more and give them a more revered place in society. But I don't think teachers are the problem. Just like gun violence is a symptom of deeper problems, poor school performance is likely the result of so many external factors related to poverty. I think the focus on test scores and teachers' unions though is destructive. There are a lot of smart people out there though that know much better than I do that probably have much better ideas for improving our schools than these politicians looking to fire people up.

2. Getting people off of welfare

I think most progressives would shoot back that this image of lazy people getting fat off welfare is a figment of Reagan's imagination, or at least a very small percentage of recipients. And there will always be people abusing the system, like any system. I would also say that the need for welfare is again one of those symptoms of external factors, and could be reduced with programs designed to ensure that people have access to well-paying jobs. A good portion of people on food stamps and welfare are people who have full time jobs but are paid so little that they can't afford to support their families. As for concrete solutions, I've heard that things like the earned income tax credit have been successful in this regard. I'm pretty sure though that the regressive cuts to social programs and such that most Republicans favor will probably push more people onto the welfare rolls.

3. Stimulating the economy
4. Restoring jobs (which is related to number 3)

Paul Krugman and Robert Reich have written extensively about this, and I find their arguments very persuasive. The answer generally comes down to stimulus spending; spending cuts are the worst approach to take. Revenue is down during a depression, which increases the deficit, and people wrongly focus on that as the problem. You are supposed to run a deficit during a recession in order to pull the economy out of the shitter. Then, when revenue is up and the economy is humming, you can focus on paying down the deficit. If you really want to pay down the deficit, I would say the best thing to do would be to institute a financial transactions tax, and let Wall Street help pay for the mess they created. And repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

I think most progressives will tell you that corporations are sitting on a ton of cash right now and aren't hiring because there is not enough demand. Giving them tax breaks won't increase demand. There is no demand because people don't have jobs and thus money to spend. Government spending on things like infrastructure can reverse this cycle. The Obama stimulus was too little and was mostly tax cuts. Additionally, things like unemployment benefits are a great form of stimulus because these dollars are spent immediately.

Precisely what is the role of government in our lives, and how do we change the human condition? The one major social change that was effected legally but still not socially has been the area of Civil Rights. Racial prejudice continues to flourish, but legal equality, if not social equality has been achieved to a very high degree, and that is at the center of the issue in any examination of attempts to change the way we act and respond to things. We can legislate behavior but we cannot legislate what is in the human heart.

You would have to admit that socially, things have gotten better. Also, the government legislating civil rights would be an indication that the majority has accepted them anyway. Also, minorities are citizens too; isn't part of the government's function to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority?

For me, there are no true liberals or conservatives in politics. People who are driven to becoming a politician more out of ego and a desire for power than altruistic reasons. They may have started with a sense of doing good, but as Lord Acton said: "Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely" . All politicians have IMO "interests" which override any philosophy or ideology and these interests are driven by special interests and greed. There is really only one political party in this country with left and right wings (and even then the situation remains fluid).

Yes, though there are some that come close to real human beings. Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Anthony Weiner...I still believe in these people.

Let me ask you this: what bad things happened to you personally under Bush? You started college, enjoyed a brilliant undergraduate career, and today because of your excellence in academic endeavors have secured a fairly high paying position as a first job in a time of high unemployment.

None, but I think that is part of being a progressive--having the ability to be concerned for people beyond your own lot (in fact, I think that is one of the textbook differences between liberals and conservatives, not that conservative are completely uncaring). One of the traits I see in conservatives that I despise is this inability to empathize with others not like them. This idea that if they could "make it", why couldn't anyone else? Why can't people pull themselves up by their bootstraps? And yet all too often it seems that once they find themselves in a similar position, they suddenly "get it" and change their minds (see: that Fox News anchor lady who had a child and discovered the wonders of maternity leave). In fact, I've read that Ayn Rand herself ended up needing help for the government for her medical needs, is this correct?

What has government done for you, to improve your quality of life? It would seem to me, that as of late, it is only causing your quality of life to suffer a bit.

This is one of those examples of us only seeing what government does wrong. Yes, government is not perfect and I am railing against those imperfections and abuses. But I'm also more than aware of the opportunities that I have been handed in life. Yeah I worked hard, but I'm under no illusion that I did it all myself and would have succeeded under any circumstances. I got a great education through the public school system. I didn't die from food poisoning because of the FDA or get lung cancer because of the EPA. My mom works at a nursing home where most residents pay via Social Security (many would probably be destitute without it). My Dad provided us with great health care because he is a member of a union, and government prevents corporations (to some extent) from cracking down on unions violently or by other illicit means.

It's easy to say: "well this is Massachusetts, it's different elsewhere." Well, to some degree or another it is the same everywhere. It's interesting, you come from New Hampshire which as a state values personal freedom and individual liberty more than in Massachusetts. You grew up in a so-called Red State or "free state" one of the reddest of the red states, and now you are complaining about Massachusetts which is the bluest of the "Blue States"...the very social programs and ideas that you say you embrace have been done on a state level for decades, yet you complain. I have trouble with this. Massachusetts is a model for what things are like when big government tries to socially engineer its populace. This is the way it is.

NH is not very red, it is purple if anything. But you're right, it does have a strong sense of freedom. The MA model is not a gold standard for "blue" ideology, no more than North Korea is the model for communism or Bush is the model for conservatism. MA does some things well, like its healthcare system, but it has a lot of problems that are not necessarily the result of liberal policies, but rather just shitty politicians.

We can never be like the Western European Social Democracies for a variety of historical and cultural reasons and now we are seeing more turmoil and problems in Europe after 60 plus years of embracing that philosophy.

I think it is easy to say "look at what's happening to Europe". But I think it is oversimplifying things to draw a straight line from socialism to riots/bankruptcy. From what I understand, the riots are the result of austerity measures put in place by the conservative government, which is decidedly not socialist. Socialism, like capitalism, has its problems, and those can be made worse by politicians.

Finally, what have you done personally to help improve our society? Instead of getting a nice job in Cambridge after grad school why didn't you volunteer your services to Americorps, for instance? You could have gone to some of the impoverished areas of our nation and done public service. Do you volunteer to work with charitable organizations such as food pantries, or homeless shelters? I know, maybe you tutor inner city kids in math or computer science once a week, sharing your considerable intellect and knowledge with them?

See final thoughts.

You went to New Hampshire and purchased a new car. Was that absolutely necessary? I don't know what kind of car you purchased or whether you needed a new one, but why didn't you buy a late model used one and contribute to a favorite charity with the left over money?

I held out on this as long as possible. I had a 98 Camry with 165K miles that was starting to break down in the middle of the road. It barely passed inspection, it had rust and was missing a door handle. I bought a new Carolla, which is the definition of inexpensive, boring, and reliable. I didn't like the idea of buying new but due to market conditions models only a few years old are almost as expensive, so it was the smart thing to do.

Why do you think that more government involvement in our lives would solve the problems that we face today?

See final thoughts.

You have probably never paid a substantial amount of income tax. Wait until April 15, 2012 and then you might question the role of government in our lives.

They've been taking it from my paycheck, and it is substantial.

So Zach, what are you doing to effect change? That, to me is the essential question.

Government is (supposed to) represent the will of the people, the mechanism by which we come together and accomplish things as a society that can't be accomplished alone or in private enterprise. Paying taxes and voting for politicians I think will enact the policies I believe will help our society is my means of contributing, and I would be happy to contribute even more in taxes if we had a truly progressive set of social policies to reduce poverty. I don't think more government is always the solution, and often less government is, in the cases where it is doing more harm than good or abusing its power. The answer is the *right* government involvement, not an amount. Not everyone should have to do volunteer work; most people should be able to contribute money instead, through taxes, and have that be effectively translated into charity by government programs. It's like, in a modern economy not everyone grows their own food; it is much more efficient for people to do what they are best at, and then use the proceeds to buy food.

I apologize if my thoughts are not super-coherent, esp towards the end, this post was a lot of work.

 

[theGringo]

Let me try to respond to this one first. I got in a accident yesterday with my new car and so have been busy dealing with that [sad2] But that's a whole other story.




You're right, but he claimed he was a conservative, and during those years that is what I used as a baseline for conservatism (or Republicanism). I saw what he was doing and what Republicans were doing, and it was pretty easy to conclude that I was a liberal Democrat. I didn't know at the time how bad Democrats were because they were in the minority. All I knew was that I aligned with them on the checklist: gay rights, abortion, unions, etc. Basically, they weren't Republicans.

That's largely how I framed my politics, as American Democrats vs. American Republicans. Looking through Wikipedia, it is obvious that the various spectrum definitions are quite complicated (liberal vs conservative, progressive vs conservative, left vs right, libertarian vs authoritarian, capitalism vs socialism, etc). It seems that most people here are libertarian as opposed to authoritarian, and on that spectrum I believe I am similarly aligned, as are many "liberals", as we've been calling them.



I've only technically been a MA resident for 3 months, and thus have avoided most of the bullshit.



What is infuriating is the complete lack of consideration for the "spirit" of the regulation. If they looked up my plate number, which I'm sure they did, they would have seen that I do in fact live in the area, that this is a new car with the same plates and so I'm obviously in the process of transferring registration. But they nail me on a technicality, not to keep non-residents from parking, but to get money. The fact that they make it so difficult for someone (who works) who is trying to follow the law, to get their affairs in order after buying a new car is infuriating.




The Depression era programs (Social Security, etc) are usually held up as the shining examples of successful social programs. I think government is one of those things that you don't notice when it's doing things right, but only when it's doing things wrong. I think like every element of human civilization, it is an institution that has its share of problems but that we are continually improving, and serves an important purpose. I think we have a bad habit of romanticizing the past (for ex the 50's), not realizing that so many things have in fact improved. I think the calls to "get rid of government" are missing the point. Yes it needs to be constantly improved (sometimes by revolution), but it deserves some credit for what is does right.



I agree, for the most part. I think the Republicans have been extremely obstructionist and in very bad faith, putting politics before the good of the country. Obama could have proposed a federal ban on all gun control measures, and Republicans still would have filibustered it. But Obama and the Democrats did not stand up to them, they just kept backing down, and that is inexcusable. Plus, Obama's habit of surrounding himself with Wall Street henchmen and former Bush officials sends a clear message that hope and change are not on the way.





This is a tough one. I'm inclined to say we should pay teachers more and give them a more revered place in society. But I don't think teachers are the problem. Just like gun violence is a symptom of deeper problems, poor school performance is likely the result of so many external factors related to poverty. I think the focus on test scores and teachers' unions though is destructive. There are a lot of smart people out there though that know much better than I do that probably have much better ideas for improving our schools than these politicians looking to fire people up.




I think most progressives would shoot back that this image of lazy people getting fat off welfare is a figment of Reagan's imagination, or at least a very small percentage of recipients. And there will always be people abusing the system, like any system. I would also say that the need for welfare is again one of those symptoms of external factors, and could be reduced with programs designed to ensure that people have access to well-paying jobs. A good portion of people on food stamps and welfare are people who have full time jobs but are paid so little that they can't afford to support their families. As for concrete solutions, I've heard that things like the earned income tax credit have been successful in this regard. I'm pretty sure though that the regressive cuts to social programs and such that most Republicans favor will probably push more people onto the welfare rolls.



Paul Krugman and Robert Reich have written extensively about this, and I find their arguments very persuasive. The answer generally comes down to stimulus spending; spending cuts are the worst approach to take. Revenue is down during a depression, which increases the deficit, and people wrongly focus on that as the problem. You are supposed to run a deficit during a recession in order to pull the economy out of the shitter. Then, when revenue is up and the economy is humming, you can focus on paying down the deficit. If you really want to pay down the deficit, I would say the best thing to do would be to institute a financial transactions tax, and let Wall Street help pay for the mess they created. And repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

I think most progressives will tell you that corporations are sitting on a ton of cash right now and aren't hiring because there is not enough demand. Giving them tax breaks won't increase demand. There is no demand because people don't have jobs and thus money to spend. Government spending on things like infrastructure can reverse this cycle. The Obama stimulus was too little and was mostly tax cuts. Additionally, things like unemployment benefits are a great form of stimulus because these dollars are spent immediately.



You would have to admit that socially, things have gotten better. Also, the government legislating civil rights would be an indication that the majority has accepted them anyway. Also, minorities are citizens too; isn't part of the government's function to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority?



Yes, though there are some that come close to real human beings. Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Anthony Weiner...I still believe in these people.



None, but I think that is part of being a progressive--having the ability to be concerned for people beyond your own lot (in fact, I think that is one of the textbook differences between liberals and conservatives, not that conservative are completely uncaring). One of the traits I see in conservatives that I despise is this inability to empathize with others not like them. This idea that if they could "make it", why couldn't anyone else? Why can't people pull themselves up by their bootstraps? And yet all too often it seems that once they find themselves in a similar position, they suddenly "get it" and change their minds (see: that Fox News anchor lady who had a child and discovered the wonders of maternity leave). In fact, I've read that Ayn Rand herself ended up needing help for the government for her medical needs, is this correct?



This is one of those examples of us only seeing what government does wrong. Yes, government is not perfect and I am railing against those imperfections and abuses. But I'm also more than aware of the opportunities that I have been handed in life. Yeah I worked hard, but I'm under no illusion that I did it all myself and would have succeeded under any circumstances. I got a great education through the public school system. I didn't die from food poisoning because of the FDA or get lung cancer because of the EPA. My mom works at a nursing home where most residents pay via Social Security (many would probably be destitute without it). My Dad provided us with great health care because he is a member of a union, and government prevents corporations (to some extent) from cracking down on unions violently or by other illicit means.




NH is not very red, it is purple if anything. But you're right, it does have a strong sense of freedom. The MA model is not a gold standard for "blue" ideology, no more than North Korea is the model for communism or Bush is the model for conservatism. MA does some things well, like its healthcare system, but it has a lot of problems that are not necessarily the result of liberal policies, but rather just shitty politicians.



I think it is easy to say "look at what's happening to Europe". But I think it is oversimplifying things to draw a straight line from socialism to riots/bankruptcy. From what I understand, the riots are the result of austerity measures put in place by the conservative government, which is decidedly not socialist. Socialism, like capitalism, has its problems, and those can be made worse by politicians.



See final thoughts.



I held out on this as long as possible. I had a 98 Camry with 165K miles that was starting to break down in the middle of the road. It barely passed inspection, it had rust and was missing a door handle. I bought a new Carolla, which is the definition of inexpensive, boring, and reliable. I didn't like the idea of buying new but due to market conditions models only a few years old are almost as expensive, so it was the smart thing to do.



See final thoughts.



They've been taking it from my paycheck, and it is substantial.

So Zach, what are you doing to effect change? That, to me is the essential question.

Government is (supposed to) represent the will of the people, the mechanism by which we come together and accomplish things as a society that can't be accomplished alone or in private enterprise. Paying taxes and voting for politicians I think will enact the policies I believe will help our society is my means of contributing, and I would be happy to contribute even more in taxes if we had a truly progressive set of social policies to reduce poverty. I don't think more government is always the solution, and often less government is, in the cases where it is doing more harm than good or abusing its power. The answer is the *right* government involvement, not an amount. Not everyone should have to do volunteer work; most people should be able to contribute money instead, through taxes, and have that be effectively translated into charity by government programs. It's like, in a modern economy not everyone grows their own food; it is much more efficient for people to do what they are best at, and then use the proceeds to buy food.

I apologize if my thoughts are not super-coherent, esp towards the end, this post was a lot of work.

Boy, are you naive.

 

[Dija]

A stronger than average case of main stream media brainwashing and Keynesian economics education.

 

[Lip]

What's wrong with a tank though? They're already legal. The reason most people don't put one in their garage is most of the time they're not street legal, and the maintenance is a bitch (as I'm sure you, of all people, are well aware of. ). They're also typically pretty expensive, for a vehicle you can really only drive around in your yard or whatever, with.

What about things like grenades, RPGs, and MANPADS? Weren't these systems designed to be used and carried by individual soldiers?

You could also argue that towed howitzers and the like are descendant weapons of cannons.

I think the political reality is though, even if we had a supreme court deck stacked with 9 pro RKBA justices, that most of them would still suck for minimally-infringing restrictions on things like high explosives. An example might be something like passive storage laws, etc. (EG, a law that says you can't pile up RPGs in an apartment building closet somewhere) etc.

It's mostly an issue of mootness, anyways. Even if all the dumb federal laws were gone tomorrow, I doubt that the local gun store
would have a large bin filled with frag grenades as you come into the store... the liability alone would be atrocious. We'd still have
a tough time running the Saab AT-4 group buy. (it could be done, it would just take longer and be somewhat more expensive).

As far as nukes go? Meh. Like someone can just go to wal mart and pick up a "bucket o fissile material" and some "shaped charges" in the sporting goods department...

-Mike

Didn't some kid make a(nuke) pile out of old smoke detectors and clocks in Mich, 1995? David Hahn I think?

 

[Billsail]

Boy, are you naive.

Oh boy, I thought we were done with this...we have a lot of work to do.

 

[NHPatriot]

This is going to take a while to deconstruct.....

 

[Lip]

You missed the ones made in PRISONS - some of the most secure "gun free" zones on earth:

There are more - these are NOT the "fake" guns that have been used in jail-breaks, these are functional, projectile firing firearms.

With access to basic machine tools outside of prison you could obviously do much more...

Lol now add IED's to your list.

 

[Dija]

This is going to take a while to deconstruct.....

It is.

 

[Palladin]

Can I buy a square on this kid being food within 3 months of SHTF ???
I've got $50 on it.