Firearms

[Backlighting]

Big Brother is watching:

NSA Officials Admit Gun Owners On ‘High Priority’ Surveillance List

http://associatedmediacoverage.com/nsa-officials-admit-all-gun-owners-on-high-priority-surveillance-list/

[SteveWolfer]

6 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

Big Brother is watching

Yep.  And they want to do more than just watch.

They say, "Why should someone on a terrorist 'No-Fly' list be able to buy a gun?"

We should ask, "Who puts someone on that list?"  And, "Is a judicial process involved in taking away the right to fly or own a gun?"

[Backlighting]

New Study: Over 14.5 million concealed handgun permits, last year saw the largest increase ever in the number of permits.

http://crimeresearch.org/2016/07/new-study-14-5-million-concealed-handgun-permits-last-year-saw-largest-increase-ever-number-permits/

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

And citizens  either armed or unarmed would have a great deal to fear from tanks, planes, helicopters,  drones, hell-fire missiles and cluster bombs.   The guns are insufficient for overthrowing a modern well armed tyranny.  It is isn't guns or the NRA that will take the government down.  It is the death of a thousand cuts  administered by  citizens throwing grit and chewing gum into the works. 

You're assuming the military would turn on the civilians. It could happen. George Washington did it first by putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. One part of the military could turn on another part, etc. You can't argue against the right to bear arms by pointing out the military can drop an H-Bomb on Phoenix or Bridgeton, New Jersey.

--Brant

[SteveWolfer]

1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

You're assuming the military would turn on the civilians.

Good point!

[BaalChatzaf]

Just now, Brant Gaede said:

You're assuming the military would turn on the civilians. It could happen. George Washington did it first by putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. One part of the military could turn on another part, etc. You can't argue against the right to bear arms by pointing out the military can drop an H-Bomb on Phoenix or Bridgeton, New Jersey.

--Brant

the right to bear arms (suitable for self defense) is implied by the natural right of self defense.  I am all in favor of people who need weapons to defend self, home and family  having such weapons.   I point out that the krazy notion put out by the militias and the gun ultras that having more weapons than one can wield will somehow defeat a nasty tyrannical government.  It won't.  

[SteveWolfer]

16 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

Over 14.5 million concealed handgun permits, last year saw the largest increase ever in the number of permits.

It must really gall Obama that he alone is the greatest promoter of new gun sales. 

[Backlighting]

You can fool some of the people some of the time...

Critics shoot holes in widely cited gun study

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/28/critics-shoot-holes-in-widely-cited-gun-study.html

[SteveWolfer]

1 hour ago, Backlighting said:

Critics shoot holes in widely cited gun study

Progressives believe that the ends justify the means, and that says that as partisan politics grows more heated we can see more and more phony studies, bald lies, and aggressively irrational arguments.

[BaalChatzaf]

Just now, SteveWolfer said:

Progressives believe that the ends justify the means, and that says that as partisan politics grows more heated we can see more and more phony studies, bald lies, and aggressively irrational arguments.

Many reactionaries also believe the ends justify the means.  This is practical thinking.  You first have the task, then you determine the tools you need.

example.  You need to attach two boards together.  You ponder.  You come up with hammer and nails  or drills and screws.  The ends determined the means.

[SteveWolfer]

12 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Many reactionaries also believe the ends justify the means.

What's a "reactionary"?  Please give me a rough definition.

12 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

This is practical thinking.  You first have the task, then you determine the tools you need.

example.  You need to attach two boards together.  You ponder.  You come up with hammer and nails  or drills and screws.  The ends determined the means.

The progressives aren't using this 'end justifies the means' to join two boards.  They are making a moral claim that says we can do immoral things as long as they are intended to achieve a moral end. 

examples.  If you are person who has a larger than average carbon footprint, then it is moral for me to kill you.  Or, if Hillary is the most progressive candidate, then it is okay for her supporters to tell lies and engage in cover-ups.

Note:  They are not making a practical case for something.  They are, when they use this dictum, claiming that they have a moral sanction but at the same time avoiding any judgment on the morality of the actions taken towards their goal.  They want to have their moral cake and eat it too. (To be moral, but not to have to act moral.)

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

What's a "reactionary"?  Please give me a rough definition.

The progressives aren't using this 'end justifies the means' to join two boards.  They are making a moral claim that says we can do immoral things as long as they are intended to achieve a moral end. 

examples.  If you are person who has a larger than average carbon footprint, then it is moral for me to kill you.  Or, if Hillary is the most progressive candidate, then it is okay for her supporters to tell lies and engage in cover-ups.

Note:  They are not making a practical case for something.  They are, when they use this dictum, claiming that they have a moral sanction but at the same time avoiding any judgment on the morality of the actions taken towards their goal.  They want to have their moral cake and eat it too. (To be moral, but not to have to act moral.)

Relax.  I merely  point out that the ends determine the means.  That is just common sense.  I even gave two humble examples.  If one wishes to achieve an end he/she must  select a means which will do the job.   The real problem lies in selecting the ends or goals.

[SteveWolfer]

28 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Relax.  I merely  point out that the ends determine the means.  That is just common sense.  I even gave two humble examples.  If one wishes to achieve an end he/she must  select a means which will do the job.   The real problem lies in selecting the ends or goals.

Baal, I really do make an effort to answer what you write.  To pay attention to what you say.  But it doesn't feel reciprocal.  I hear the word reactionary at different times, and I know it usually comes up in a political context, so I asked what it was.  I could have looked it up, of course.  But I wanted to get an answer that was in context to our discussion.  No reply.

I don't know how to respond when what you choose to do is ignore what I write in my post.  I explained about "The ends justify the means" in a political/moral context and how that was very different from the business of joining two pieces of wood.  You ignored those just as if I hadn't written them.  Why is that?

[BaalChatzaf]

9 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

Baal, I really do make an effort to answer what you write.  To pay attention to what you say.  But it doesn't feel reciprocal.  I hear the word reactionary at different times, and I know it usually comes up in a political context, so I asked what it was.  I could have looked it up, of course.  But I wanted to get an answer that was in context to our discussion.  No reply.

I don't know how to respond when what you choose to do is ignore what I write in my post.  I explained about "The ends justify the means" in a political/moral context and how that was very different from the business of joining two pieces of wood.  You ignored those just as if I hadn't written them.  Why is that?

reactionary = one who subordinates the rights of individuals to the (assumed)  needs of society or State.  Basically a collectivist with a weapon. 

I respond to everything you say taken literally (by  me).   I respond only to the words.  I have not the slightest idea what you meant or intended.  The only intentions I know of are my own.  I keep telling you I am mind blind.  But you insist on flogging blind me  for not seeing.  That is not nice.  Basically I respond to others as I would respond to the outputs of a state-machine automaton.  I too am a state-machine automaton.  The only difference is that I know what is going on under my hood.  I have no sure notion of what is going on  under your hood.  At best I can guess. 

If you cannot deal with the fact that I am mind blind and intention deaf,  then do not trouble your self to emit outputs in my direction. 

[SteveWolfer]

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am mind blind.  But you insist on flogging blind me  for not seeing.

I'm not buying that... not fully.  Often, your writing is quite expressive.  Too expressive, too nuanced to be a "state-machine automaton."  I recognize that there can be significant differences between communication processes in people, but any differences that existed at an early age, or from birth, are going to be grist for the developmental process.  That is, they are going to change in one way or another. 

I suspect that there is utility for you in your identity.  And you quite often do NOT respond to just the words and do NOT take everything literally, and do NOT respond with word choices of your own that are the least mechanical.  That says that there is latitude in what you understand and what you output.  I'm talking about a variance in the emotional content, and particularly a way to vary things to suit an internal state - a kind of self-regulation.  Children with very high levels of intelligence usually feel that as a pressure and find different ways to deal with being different.  How to be safe from conflict or rejection can be done in many ways.  One is to take a difference and get behind it - that takes a high level of intelligence, but once a pattern is there, that intelligence can set itself free to roar in the non-emotional areas.

Of course, this is just me making wild-ass guesses... but, if I'm right, then if you were to practice focusing on finding that self-regulation, on being more aware of it in action, you would extend the range of your control, and diminish the degree of "mind-blindness".

The problem with our developmental process (child to adult) is that a kind of decision making goes on... in areas like understanding what others want or expect, and like how to react to them - and the processing 'decisions' get made by a child.  Often an actual difference is compensated for, as if our mechanism were built to shift till it was more like others, but other times a perceived or real difference is magnified or used in some way - like a shield.  We have to wait till we are adults before we can grasp enough of the essence of self-awareness to make any changes.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

I'm not buying that... not fully.  Often, your writing is quite expressive.  Too expressive, too nuanced to be a "state-machine automaton."  I recognize that there can be significant differences between communication processes in people, but any differences that existed at an early age, or from birth, are going to be grist for the developmental process.  That is, they are going to change in one way or another. 

I suspect that there is utility for you in your identity.  And you quite often do NOT respond to just the words and do NOT take everything literally, and do NOT respond with word choices of your own that are the least mechanical.  That says that there is latitude in what you understand and what you output.  I'm talking about a variance in the emotional content, and particularly a way to vary things to suit an internal state - a kind of self-regulation.  Children with very high levels of intelligence usually feel that as a pressure and find different ways to deal with being different.  How to be safe from conflict or rejection can be done in many ways.  One is to take a difference and get behind it - that takes a high level of intelligence, but once a pattern is there, that intelligence can set itself free to roar in the non-emotional areas.

Of course, this is just me making wild-ass guesses... but, if I'm right, then if you were to practice focusing on finding that self-regulation, on being more aware of it in action, you would extend the range of your control, and diminish the degree of "mind-blindness".

The problem with our developmental process (child to adult) is that a kind of decision making goes on... in areas like understanding what others want or expect, and like how to react to them - and the processing 'decisions' get made by a child.  Often an actual difference is compensated for, as if our mechanism were built to shift till it was more like others, but other times a perceived or real difference is magnified or used in some way - like a shield.  We have to wait till we are adults before we can grasp enough of the essence of self-awareness to make any changes.

I am on the autism spectrum according to DSM-V.  I did not choose that any more than I chose my eye color.  It is what it is.  Mind blind, intention deaf and ultra-literal.  When I  read Heinlein's  "Stranger in a Strange Land"  I came across the concept of the Fair Witness,  one who describes literally and does not insert judgment or opinion in his/her utterance.   I was inspired.  I decided then and there to be a Fair Witness.  So the next time you ask me what color that house is I will say <color-name> on the side facing me.  That is how I operate.  It is very likely genetically conditioned. 

[SteveWolfer]

21 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am on the autism spectrum according to DSM-V.

Yes, I understand that. 

I have a cousin who is not autistic in the least, but she was married to an engineer with autism and their two boys are on the autism spectrum.  I watched the interactions between my cousin and her husband and between her and the boys.  I recognize that this is probably genetically conditioned, but I saw a lot of variability in its expression from one moment or one day to the next.  The autism was a kind of baseline, but there was a lot of psychological movement that could be called "more autistic" or "less autistic" - mental/emotional movement that was psychologically conditioned.  I also saw her husband looking a bit unhappy at times as a reaction to being autistic, and I saw times where I believe autism was being used in different interpersonal ways - as a defense, as a tool, as a refuge.

I have no experience beyond that, but I'm a keen observer and that's what I saw and thought.

[BaalChatzaf]

41 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Yes, I understand that. 

I have a cousin who is not autistic in the least, but she was married to an engineer with autism and their two boys are on the autism spectrum.  I watched the interactions between my cousin and her husband and between her and the boys.  I recognize that this is probably genetically conditioned, but I saw a lot of variability in its expression from one moment or one day to the next.  The autism was a kind of baseline, but there was a lot of psychological movement that could be called "more autistic" or "less autistic" - mental/emotional movement that was psychologically conditioned.  I also saw her husband looking a bit unhappy at times as a reaction to being autistic, and I saw times where I believe autism was being used in different interpersonal ways - as a defense, as a tool, as a refuge.

I have no experience beyond that, but I'm a keen observer and that's what I saw and thought.

You mistook me for a human being.  That is my wife's doing.  She is a Normal and we get along just fine.  She taught me over the years some behavior modifications  that enabled me to pass as human.   I do a pretty good job of it (but not perfect).  If I have human seeming characteristics  I learned them from my wife who has a great deal of patience with me.  I nominate her for sainthood.  It took over 40 years but in a crowd, as long as I do not get into a deep conversation with anyone,  people think I am Normal.  Also as long as people do not ask me the color of the house across the way,  I can pass. 

[SteveWolfer]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

You mistook me for a human being

I strongly dislike that way of speaking about yourself.  You are human and it is wrong approach this in any other way.  No one should ever build a personal identity that walls them in, that describes differences more significant than they need to be.

[Backlighting]

Baal, Steve. Can we refrain from comments not about firearms here. You can start a new thread. Thanks much, Joe

[SteveWolfer]

43 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

Can we refrain from comments not about firearms here

Yes, sorry. 

If someone with admin privileges wants to, I'm okay with having everything from Baal's post at 3:55 on Thursday snipped and moved it to a new thread.

[BaalChatzaf]

52 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Yes, sorry. 

If someone with admin privileges wants to, I'm okay with having everything from Baal's post at 3:55 on Thursday snipped and moved it to a new thread.

I concur.  Micheal,  can you do plastic surgery on the thread?

[Backlighting]

Thanks Baal & Steve & let me state I do enjoy the back & forth you two have. -- J

[Backlighting]

Well it looks like the Germans are recognizing reality. Now if they can only enact immigration control.

Germany sees record requests for self-defense weapons amid fears of lone-wolf attacks

https://www.rt.com/news/354061-germany-weapons-licenses-increase/

[Backlighting]

Now here's a piece of history on the auction block:

http://www.guns.com/2016/08/05/nazi-officer-hermann-goerings-gold-plated-pistol-up-for-bid/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=57a49f6604d301751585f504&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook