Messages

Oh, THIS isn't chilling...

http://www.iiicitadel.com/patriotagreement.html

Like half of it is making sure there are enough guns.  I know that's important to these people, but half of their founding document?

So, repurposing doctors as gun control detectives (completely ignoring the fact that guns are outside the purvey of doctors, that most people don't see their doctors frequently enough for it to be useful, and that most gun violence happens by people who are not diagnosed with a mental illness) is a partial solution, but measures to resolve societal stressors are not worth a second mention. Got it.

But that's complicated, and hard, and might actually involve rearranging society so that the rich don't get nearly all the goodies.  Plus it isn't amenable to a quick fix that will win the next election.

Is it just me or is the whole mental health care act just a bit of bullshit?

Yes, I do think it is important. However placing that above the actual discussion (Guns) is reframing the debate to the ideas that only the mentally unbalanced commit violent crimes.


My wildly impractiacal solution ignoring the arms in circulation is that every new owner should have a required level of training and pass a william tell style test. Fail the test, go to jail. Can't find anyone to volunteer to hold the apple, well shit you're not passing.

The mentally ill are who go on killing sprees like Sandy Hook.  Better mental health care wont prevent all gun crimes, but it does a lot to address the particular issue at hand.

I'd say there's substantial sentiment against more firearms in the UK from the general public. The relatively rare shootings that occur here are big news stories for good while. There's pretty much no high profile support for a more liberal regime either.


Anyway, over here you're more likely to be stabbed than shot.

That seems like a reason for guns (stabbings)  Guns are awfully good at preventing them.

So to look at it from another perspective, what keeps the UK from liberalizing their gun laws?  I know that inertia is part of what keeps guns nearly unregulated in the US and nearly non existent in the UK, but I assume it is more than that.

I'm a moderate when it comes to gun control.  I'd like to see them licensed and registered like automobiles.  However registration is not going to happen as long as there is a credible threat of it leading to confiscation.

The molasses flood as divine retribution is a beautiful touch.

Rand Paul:

"There's no reason our White House, our Capitol, and our major cities shouldn't have a missile defense."

What's the worst that could happen?

I take it he's not opposed to government spending then...

Food not bombs is a good organization for distributing that stuff (expired food).  If there is one in the area they'll come and pick it up and distribute it.  They only take vegan stuff though.

A lot of local food pantries will as well, but not all of them.  I know in my area the Salvation army will not.

Out of curiosity, if you took the top 5% say of the rich, and made them live for a week, every year on the National average wage, in "average" accomodation etc, what would be the result? I mean just take the statistical norm for everything and let them at it. While doing a 40 hour week. Sort your own food and transport. And pay the weeks bills at the end of it.



I'd expect to watch living standards soar year on year.

I'd expect to watch them go down.  They'd do it and go "well, I did this when I was living at average wages, and if you did too you wouldn't be so miserable, I didn't need all the resources I was allotted, you don't either"

What makes them losers is that they want to be rich OR poor in a system in which the rich needlessly fuck the poor.

Oh, man.  How I wish I could staple that onto the foreheads of some of the people I know.

This.  This is a very, very good line.

I've been trying to think of how to say that for about 10 years.

Personally I think you've managed to say it a good few times but never so succinctly. So what's the alternative? Whether you're rich or aspiring to be rich you're buying into the con. The rich are as bad off as the poor in a lot of ways. Specifically because it's never enough. Doesn't matter how much they have or don't have, they're junkies, hooked on more - slaves to the impossible dream of having all the fucking bananas and unable to rest or be happy with what they have.

I'd preach the gospel of "ENOUGH" but who the fuck would listen and why the fuck should I care? I have enough. It's not much but it's enough. "Enough for what?" they might ask if they weren't too busy trying to work out how to get their hands on all my bananas. The answer, if they bothered to listen, is - enough to live my life like I fucking mean it and take every little thing that smells like fun TO THE FUCKING WALL!!! Instead of pissing my life away chasing boring yellow fruit.

Sounds kinda Buddhist.

I made about 10k on bitcoin, by buying in early.  I'm fully out of it now though.  I only invested like $30, so it was sweet, like a lottory win, but I'm glad I got out.  It's not stable at all.

Tell her the truth, that way she'll know how lucky she is to get away before things get any more serious.

And then go drown your sorrow with an expensive hooker, I'm sure she'll understand your refined tastes.

Pink Floyd's the Wall is pretty brain fucking

Fellini's satyricon made me feel like I was on acid watching it.

The Wall Street Journal seems to be making bad suggestions.  That surprises me since I remembered them being reasonably sensible when the Republicans were pulling their initial hostage taking over the debt ceiling.

You're on crack.  The WSJ has been a Murdock rag for years.

I may have had them confused with some other mouthpiece for the upper class.