Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to kingcuke's blog Subscribe


Special Features


The baby boomers did not vote themselves untenable benefits, that luxury is limited to public unions.
The shortfall & predicted problems with SS funding are not the fault of the baby boomers they actually didn't have anymore voting power than the millennials or any other age group.
Globalization, the growth of the financial sector of the economy, the inherent systemic flaw of a consumer economy which grows or dies, and the Powell plan memo which started the swing towards business rather than citizen centric politics and privatization & control instead of the commonweal.

The simple reality is now and in the future, barring a massive population decline due to disease or global war, more people than there are jobs, and even fewer living wage jobs.

The ever expanding pie, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, prosperity gospel is a statistical impossibility for all but the higher trenches of the deterministic sum of genetics and circumstance.
Modern corporations have changed the nature of property separating the owners of the property (shareholders)and control of the property (managers & directors).

"We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living."
R. Buckminster Fuller

The debate hasn't changed in 2,000 years:
"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Every time Second Amendment issues arise two phrases are parroted, common sense gun laws & assault rifle.

The trouble with "assault rifle" is that it is invariably used incorrectly, as are the terms machine gun & automatic.
While fully automatic weapons are legal to own they are rare, expensive, and highly regulated both at the state & federal level.
When one hears news stories about AKs or ARs, machine guns or assault rifles the firearms themselves are invariably semi-automatic firearms which fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled as opposed to an automatic or "machine" gun which fires as long as the trigger is pulled, until the magazine is emptied.

When technical rules are applied using inaccurate terms what may appear common sense banning of dangerous military weapons end up banning all self-loading (semi-automatic) firearms which includes everything from pistols to shotguns, .22s to 10 gauge.

Any registration scheme becomes a defacto confiscation list when through an interpretation of a regulation formerly legal firearms are reclassified as illegal. This happened in Canada with several styles of .22 caliber rifles.

Through future administrative reclassification any firearm could be made illegal.

The major anti-gun groups if one delves deeply enough into their policies want to ban all civilian ownership of firearms.
While the focus is always on "assault" rifles (which are rarely used in criminal activity) and magazine capacity the reality is any firearm whether single shot, revolver, or break action shot gun is equally deadly on the first shot and while it seems logical to many that a 30 round magazine is more "dangerous" than a 10 round magazine the reality is it's a difference without a distinction.
Reloading a firearm with practice can be very quick & in an unarmed crowd lacking heroes like Mr. Chris Mintz or a concealed carry licensee stopping anyone with any kind of a firearm is unlikely until met with equal or greater force.

Equally one must consider the subtle but significant change to our form of government when only it or it's agents may posses firearms, which of course in the US means the connected and the rich too.

We do not have a gun problem in the US we have a sociological problem of violence, gangs, poverty, lack of opportunity, and low social mobility.

Are there people who shouldn't be allowed to own firearms?
Absolutely, but who has the right to allow what rights and liberties we have beyond the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

"But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. ...
For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
Jeff Snyder

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2015 World Readable