Re: OT - Is it really worth saving any more?

Simple.

As you increase the cost of an activity, you reduce the number of participants.

At a minimun, the number of "Saturday night specials" sold will be reduced since the cost of ammo for it would more than double the cost of a usable weapon.

The market all ready pretty much takes care of itself.

Cost of new product negates any cost advantage of trying to reclaim them for another purpose.

Totally unnecessary.

The industry has been advised of the hazmat procedures.

Don't know of many companies that are willing to expose themselves to hazmat problems for a nominal sum of money.

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett
Loading thread data ...

Any other of the amendments to the Constitution that you'd like to eliminate by back door processes? Maybe let the press have their printing presses but tax ink at $1,000,000 / gal? Or maybe a $1,000 tax at the door of your church to get in.

todd

Reply to
todd

Several cites: The following is a synopsis of the FBI report, if you don't like the source, you can peruse the FBI report yourself. Key summary: "Right-to-Carry states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country with total violent crime lower by 24 percent, murder by 28 percent, robbery by 50 percent, and aggravated assault by 11 percent. "

Effect of gun laws in England and the idea that people should not protect themselves or others, they should rely upon society to protect them:

2006 piece citing some Canadian information

Those were few that were found in a few minutes of looking

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

I think most would agree that there's a significant moral difference between the right to bear arms and the right to free speech, despite the fact that they're both enshrined in your constitution. And just because something *is* enshrined in your constitution, doesn't for one second mean that what was important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years, population and society have changed significantly.

Reply to
Upscale

I certainly don't like the source. The NRA? An organzation whose sole purpose is the right to bear arm. Decidedly one sided point of view.

Another dubious point of view from an individual. How about some unbiased national statistics?

Same comment as above. The personal view of a single individual who has set up a website for blogging his opinion.

Sorry Mark, the above sources only make one question it further. I'll have a look around for some statistics that project a more unbiased and widely studied point of view.

Reply to
Upscale

Human nature, however has not. The fact that there are still people out there who would prey upon those weaker than themselves does not make the right to self-defense any less relevant now than it was in the past.

Nor does the threat of an armed citizenry make enslavement of those citizens any easier now than in the past. There are still those today who would impose absolute dictatorial power over others if they were able to do so.

You may say that you see a moral difference between the right to free speech and the right to bear arms -- there are those who see the right to free speech as something that is outmoded and should be subject to strict "guidelines" that prevent giving offense to various protected groups.

The fact is, that there are those now who say that the freedom enshrined in the Constitution is no longer relevant and that the Constitution is an impediment to the government exercising more control over our lives (for our good of course -- it's always for our good). *That* is exactly why the Constitution was established as it was -- to protect us from those who would enslave us "for our own good". Just because the excuses given for that desire for control may have changed, the need to prevent that type of tyrannical behavior has not changed.

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

I can't argue with that, except to say that maybe the means of self defense should be changed if that is at all possible.

No argument.

I agree.

Reply to
Upscale

One day, one might rely on the other.

And you know what, there is a mechanism to change anything that is outdated. If someone wants to remove the 2nd amendment, they can go through the defined process. But they're not going to backdoor it with the moronic idea of taxing ammo.

todd

Reply to
todd

"Upscale" wrote

But, reading any literature from the past thousand years for ample proof, human nature has not changed one iota. :)

Currently reading de Balzac's prolific series "Human Comedy", volumes upon volumes depicting life/characters in France in the early 1800's, like "Cousin Pons", "Eugenie Gaudet" and/or "Cousin Betty" for starters, ... English translations abound:

formatting link
characters are someone you immediately know, or recognize, today ... in the latter above, you would swear you were reading about Ms. Ciccone ... :)

Reply to
Swingman

Absolutely right.

Reply to
Robatoy

While I certainly agree that they have a one-sided point of view, and I will admit that I have often pointed out biased sources by others in various discussions, the issue here was not the point of view expressed, but the statistics cited. In this case, the statistics can be pretty well relied upon to be what is in the FBI report (I just wasn't going to go digging for that report). One thing regarding NRA statistics -- you can pretty well be sure they are correct because the other side spends a great deal of time fact-checking anything the NRA cites or states. If the NRA cites were off by a single digit, the media would be all over them for making up facts. The media treatment of the NRA is quite unlike the media's treatment of other groups with whose views the media agrees, those groups can make up whatever figures they like (e.g. # of homeless, degrees of global warming, # of people hungry or impoverished, dangers of eating certain types of food, etc.) with little or no fear of being called out on it.

Don't disagree that parts of this are an opinion piece, however, the history and statistics cited are consistent with historical events and other news reports.

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

Give it up, Mark. You are looking silly now. You can no longer defend that cluster-flub you're been rooting for. Even YOU can see it was the absolute worst presidency in US history.

Reply to
Robatoy

While agreeing that the behaviour of the mob was reprehensible, vile and displayed the sort of savage disregard for fellow mankind that one might expect from a pack of rabid dogs, one cannot help but wonder at the social "norm" that helped precipitate the event. The deliberate engineering of a competitive "me, me, me first!!" greediness in having a "sale" where a few items are tangled as bait before a dammed-up wall of wound-up, starting tape-tearing consumers is every bit as much to blame as the low-life savages who succumbed to it.

The store's policy is tantamount to incitement to riot and deserves censure at best. What do they expect when they pull stunts like dangling raw meat over the heads of a pack of starving wolves for several days, letting it be known that _only_ the first , fastest, highest jumping wolf will actually get the gravy?

People - "the people of today" - just aren't that clever or evolved. They watch reality T.V. They subscribe to political correctness. With the stripping away of the currently defined "civilization" facade, they bay for gladiatorial blood or shovel other people into gas ovens for a popular ideal. They believe in things which are provably untrue and are willing to put to death anyone who will not accept their ludicrous superstitions. They steal from other people, attack total strangers purely to enjoy the experience and drive motor vehicles with total disregard for the comfort and safety of anyone outside the vehicle. They are savage, brutal and oftentimes only held in check by fear of reprisals for not conforming to the acceptable norm. This, among all the compassion, selfless love and splendid and glorious stuff which balances it out, is the ever-present dark side of the contemporary human condition. How can we, with impunity, provoke such humankind with tantalizing evil such as these first-past-the-post "sales" where the combatants have been psyched-up to believe that the stakes are so damned high?

We can't. We can't play exploitative games like this and shirk the consequences. What has happened is the inevitable result of the deliberate, cynical manipulation of consumers into a competitive position. It will happen again unless this consumerist model is rethought to accommodate the volatility of the manipulated resource. Wal-Mart and similar concerns must reassess their entire strategy and, if they still wish to entertain shoppers with a competitive element in the hunting and killing of seasonal bargains, then they must do it in a way that cannot engender physical aggression.

Yes, the people surging into the store were stupid, savage animals but it was the store's poorly conceived hysteria-raising crowd-damming manipulating of them that made them that way. Wal-Mart are as much the killers here as anyone.

Reply to
Bored Borg

"Robatoy" wrote

I truly do not have a dog in the fight, but I would caution to let history decide that. The media, providing the masses the information upon which the judgment is currently based, is as equally despicable as any politician.

And "the masses" are basically responsible for the very post that started this thread.

Reply to
Swingman

You sound like SWMBO ... to your credit. :)

I normally snip. but the above deserves repeating.

Reply to
Swingman

Lord of the Flies. Guess it comes down to we're basically animals at heart and doomed to always be so.

Reply to
Upscale

Hell, even Carter got a few things right....even though I can't come up with anything just now...NIXON did a few things.... okay..can't think of anything there either... . . . I guess if we wait long enough, Bush43 did something right...but it's hard to imagine what that could have been....

I'm sorry, but I'm still in awe of Reagan.... yea yea yea.. he wasn't perfect either... but he was COOL!

Reply to
Robatoy

I especially like the part in our Constitution that says "all men must compete for bargains at holidays sales" No one made them get up to go to the store, be it Wal Mart, Best Buy, JC Penney, etc.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

So how many firearms costing less than 60 dollars are sold in a given year? And how many people are shot with them?

Prove that the problem your solution will address is the problem that exists.

So you're saying that new wheelweights cost $100 an ounce?

Then you need to get out more.

Reply to
J. Clarke

I can't think of any myself

Finally got us out of Indochina.

Ended the draft.

Drafted and signed the first nuclear limitation treaty with Russia (the SALT treaty).

Opened the first American dialogue with the Chinese (a communist!) government.

Created the EPA.

Sent the brilliant Henry Kissinger to the middle east to get Egypt, Syria and Israel to stop fighting. He was successful.

Then... in an unprecedented case of believing one's own bullshit combined with a stew of paranoia, arrogance, and stupidity, he got involved in Watergate. He will be remembered for nothing else. In many ways, I think Nixon was a terribly warped man.

Why be sorry? He was waaaay cool. He was far from perfect, (kinda like the rest of us...) but he was the right guy at the right place at the right time. The lefties were in tears as they thought he was too conservative, and the righties thought he wasn't conservative enough.

After all the years of the country joyfully tearing itself to pieces, it was neat to be "proud to be an American" again. IIRC, when he ran for re-election, he was so popular with the public he only lost one state in the Union.

Sadly, I don't think we will ever see the likes of him again.

Robert

Reply to
nailshooter41

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.