Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumrfranklin
(13,200 posts)as usual.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)Typical. Even the biggest "I am really a Democrat" Pro Gunner eventually lets you know exactly what will happen if the government tries to "take their guns away".
ileus
(15,396 posts)jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)Romulans and Vulcans share common DNA. Or some such silly notion. I'm more into Frank Herbert and Carl Sagan than Star Trek.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)The Romulans are of the Vulcan species. One of three theories regarding how the Romulans arrived at the stellar system that includes the planets Romulus and Remus involves Sargon's people, referred to in conjecture as the "Arretians", as mentioned in the Star Trek: The Original Series episode "Return to Tomorrow". Sargon claimed that his people had seeded their species throughout the galaxy, and Spock said that could explain some enigmas of Vulcan pre-history. Hanoch, one of Sargon's people and a rival, further claimed that Spock's hybrid Human-Vulcan body was a "good fit" for his alien physiology. If these claims are true, then the Arretians may have been the antecedents for the Romulans and indeed, they may have also been the species known as the Preservers. The inhabitants of Mintaka III ("Who Watches The Watchers?" seem to support this theory.
Another theory says that Vulcan colonization efforts led to a split, or schism, between factions favoring the school of logic espoused by the philosopher Surak and opposition groups, led by S'task, which ended up leaving Vulcan. However, there is no explicit canon evidence that the group which left Vulcan was in rebellion against Surak. The "Vulcan Soul" Trilogy, written by Josepha Sherman and Susan Shwartz, told the story that it was Surak's idea that some of the Vulcan population should leave their homeworld to find a new home so that the Vulcan race could be preserved due to the endless wars then raging on the homeworld. (Conversely, the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Awakening" includes a line from the long-deceased Surak referring to the enemies of logic in his time as "those who marched beneath the raptor's wing": this would appear to be a reference to the symbol of the Romulan Empire.) These Vulcans arrived on Romulus and founded what would become the Romulan Star Empire. This theory is supported by a reference within the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "United": Senator Vrax refers to Vulcans as "our distant brothers" during the first part of the episode.
Information from "Balance Of Terror" suggests yet a different theory. While Spock makes it clear that the events during the period of Surak are well documented ("The Savage Curtain" , he is completely uncertain in regard to the origin of the Romulans: "If the Romulans are an offshoot of my Vulcan blood--and I think this likely--then attack becomes even more imperative. Vulcan, like Earth, had its aggressive, colonizing period, and if they have retained that martial philosophy... then weakness is something we dare not show."
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not supported by the content of the image, but to each his own imagination.
GreydeeThos
(958 posts)They do seem to be evenly matched Captian.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)while you are at it?
Are you going to put food on my table since you want to take away my gun?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)But you try to throw up another straw man.
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)But I now better understand why the great mental lengths anti-rkba advocates will go to create drama.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)VERY LOGICAL!
bongbong
(5,436 posts)"I felt threatened! That guy wants me to wait 3 days & go thru a background check to buy my 200-round 50 caliber machine gun! I've only got 352 other guns to protect myself, and I NEED THAT GUN!"
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Exaggerations shouldn't be so obvious.
Besides, a .50 BMG doesen't exactly qualify as a concealed firearm.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)I'm not asserting you can shoot it without breaking your wrist, mind you.
> I'm not asserting you can shoot it without breaking your wrist, mind you.
Don't worry. Gun-lovers will be clamoring for a recoilless mini 50 caliber as soon as they think of it. And they will suddenly realize that they NEED THAT GUN NOW for their safety! Their other 352 guns just didn't quite make them feel safe!
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)It lets you shoot the .50 GI cartridge:
Certainly not recoilless, but quite mild! 300 grain bullet at 860 fps...more of a big "push" than sharp recoil.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)If you need it to feel safe, and it's legal, go right ahead.
Millions of people live without guns & feel as safe as being in their mother's womb, but I know that others need help.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)I do want it...and that's enough, yes?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Let's say I want a toxic waste dump put next door to someone I hate. And let's say I have enough political power to get an pollution-law exemption passed (like "I'm a job creator!" , and enuf money to buy the land next to the guy I want to poison. And if pressed on why I want it, I'll just say "I do want it...and that's enough, yes?"
Just a hypothetical.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Whereas if I purchase this conversion kit (that means all it does is let me shoot a different cartridge, mind you) I would be harming what innocent people?
Please be specific in your answer, otherwise your analogy falls apart.
DonP
(6,185 posts)That's exactly what alderman Richard Mel (D) did a few years back. Bought some property in a neighboring community (Joliet area) under a corporate shell and put in a waste dump. Of course he greased it with his Son in Law, Blago, but he got what he wanted along with a big waste hauling contract.
That's the same Alderman that ignored the gun laws and "forgot" to register his collection and was given a pass by the Chicago police for it.
But that's OK with some folks here, because he has that "D" after his name.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Go figure.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Callisto32
(2,997 posts)*SNORK*
DUDE! Not while I'm drinking!
Oh, one of those TECHNICAL objections to my obviously satirical post.
OK, respond to this slightly-altered version of my post #10:
""I felt threatened! That guy wants me to wait 3 days & go thru a background check to buy my XX-round YY caliber gun! I've only got 352 other guns to protect myself, and I NEED THAT GUN!"
I'll wait for your reply.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)..What good does a 3 day waiting period make???
Here ya go:
http://www.google.com/search?q=3+day+waiting+period+guns+prevent+lots+of+murders
Now I've got a question for you. Why do pro-gunners hate 3 day waiting periods so much?
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Three day waiting periods do not apply to restraining orders.
Two trips to the gun store is environmentally unfriendly.
Criminals are exempt from the law.
So your response is NRA Talking Points.
That isn't a response, that parroting.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...I enjoy irony.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)That's carping.
I see you aren't interested in a real debate, since your "answers" like "avoid too many trips" are obvious stupidity.
This is where gun-lovers' "rebuttals" usually end up, so you're no different. Ho-hum.
How can it be called a debate when one side lacks experience on the topic but bases the argument on hearsay and second hand information?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)bongbong is The MasterBator. I know I bowed to him the other night.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Nor was she an NRA member!
[img] [/img]
rl6214
(8,142 posts)The only one that might be a talking point is the one about criminals not having to comply, the other two were pretty original
DWC
(911 posts)Best response to why law abiding citizens fight gun control laws. That quot is now saved to favorites.
Semper Fi,
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Google Search does not = evidence. In the search you provided, several of the links do not conclude that waiting periods prevent "lots of murders".
There must have been a terrible outbreak during the winter of 2010 if we are to believe google. http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=blue%20waffles&cmpt=date
> In the search you provided, several of the links do not conclude that waiting periods prevent "lots of murders".
Then pick the ones out that do - and you did acknowledge that fact by saying "several" vs. "all". There's your answer.
Since I answered your question, you have to answer one of mine. Why do gun-lovers hate 3 day waiting periods so much?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)You posted evidence both supporting and contradicting the effect that 3 day waiting periods have a positive effect on preventing murder.
None of the results that I found on the first 5 pages linked to any criminology study showing the effectiveness of such a policy.
"Why do gun-lovers hate 3 day waiting periods so much?" There is a difference between hating and questioning. If someone questions something it does not mean they hate it.
sarisataka
(18,501 posts)Here is the conclusion of the top article:
There are a number of possibilities that might explain the astonishingly high 0.91 correlation between handgun waiting periods and murder rates in California:
1. Waiting periods may be completely useless for reducing murder rates. This doesn't mean that a waiting period doesn't *occasionally* prevent a murder from happening; there are probably cases where delay may cause reflection, and the passions of the moment may subside. So what are the circumstances that would cancel out the murders prevented by a waiting period?
+ For every murder thus prevented, a victim was similarly prevented from buying a handgun for self-defense.
+ That so-called "crimes of passion" are not readily deterred by waiting periods because of substitution of other weapons.
+ That murderers are already armed, and thus waiting periods do not delay them.
+ That murderers don't bother buying handguns legally.
2. Waiting periods may be of some limited utility for reducing murder rates, but were overwhelmed by other factors.
3. Waiting periods may *increase* murder rates, but the effect that we see may have been caused by other factors, and the waiting period made only a minor contribution.
4. Waiting periods may increase murder rates, and the effect was dramatic enough to explain what we see.
5. Waiting periods may be ineffective, and the political energy devoted to them (both in support and in opposition), meant that more effective strategies for reducing murder simply fell by the wayside, and the murder rate was unaffected.
Unfortunately, it is impossible, based on the available data, to determine which of these five possibilities is correct. In a sense, though, it doesn't really much matter which of these propositions is the answer to the question. If possibility #2 above (the most positive interpretation of the data for advocates of handgun waiting periods) is true, the effectiveness of handgun waiting periods as *crime control* is so slight that it doesn't jump out at us from the data. The political energy devoted to waiting periods thus makes no sense -- especially since opposition to the Brady Bill centers on the waiting period aspect of the law. (Contrary to popular perceptions, the National Rifle Association has supported, and continues to reluctantly support an instant background check law as an alternative to a national waiting period. Their support for such laws is reluctant, partly because of skepticism that *any* background check law is going to solve the fundamental causes of violence in our society.)
California's Handgun Waiting Period Law, 1952-1990: Did It Work?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firearmsandliberty.com%2Fcramer.waiting.html&ei=4naDT6OKBZSs8QT0_rHhBw&usg=AFQjCNFzXOo2h2Gje1Cv-An2WkuMNQHUvA&sig2=oj2SSiL-ErSsFPUIaACe4Q
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)than Vermont and Wyoming.....
Oh wait, never mind.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Beyond that, though...
> Beyond that, though...
NO, you just haven't researched the issue yet.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Some of us come up with differing opinions.
I can name my sources. What are yours?
beevul
(12,194 posts)That and you could actually answer the question that was asked.
I'll make it a little easier for you and rephrase it:
What purpose does a 3 day waiting period serve, when applied to those that already own one or more guns.
> So name them.
Read my post #19.
Since I answered your question, now you get to answer my question.
Why do gun-lovers hate 3 day waiting periods so much?
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Since I answered your question, now you get to answer my question."
No, you DID NOT answer MY question.
This is MY question:
What purpose does a 3 day waiting period serve, when applied to those that already own one or more guns?
Neither post 19, nor anything it contains, is an answer to that question.
Answer it, and I'll be happy to answer yours.
Edited to add the forgotten question mark.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)How about you?
I can answer a question too. Now answer mine, what are your sources? I answered your question.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)[URL][/IMG]
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)(this one doesn't have anything to do with guns...I just like it)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)please enlighten me people.