PDA

View Full Version : Here's an idea



j2k4
03-31-2009, 07:52 PM
North Korea has nukes now, with imminent and ominous portent.

Japan has no nukes, and no real appetite for them.

I propose the US do everything it can to help Japan develop a cutting-edge missile-defense system, with every bell and whistle in the technical arsenal, and do so with the stated aim of exporting same to any and every taker deemed acceptable by Japan and the US.

What harm, after all.

bigboab
03-31-2009, 08:40 PM
Your friend today is your enemy tomorrow. Do you remember arming Iraq, well not you personally, when they were at war with Iran?

*Proliferate : to reproduce itself or grow by the multiplication of elementary parts.

*Just in case someone does not have this in their dictionary:whistling.

clocker
03-31-2009, 10:21 PM
Gee, why not.
We already arm the Mexican drug cartels and every wingnut with a grudge against his ex-wife, so why discriminate against Japan?

roger200
04-01-2009, 09:44 AM
Think of the power rush you get when you hold a gun. Now imagine having you own armed to the teeth army, navy and airforce. And then nuclear codes.

No wonder theese guys are nuts, all of them. No man is supposed to have that much power.

Skiz
04-01-2009, 09:46 AM
Think of the power rush you get when you hold a gun. Now imagine having you own armed to the teeth army, navy and airforce. And then nuclear codes.

No wonder theese guys are nuts, all of them. No man is supposed to have that much power.

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in the USA it must be a joint decision. Only Congress can declare war, and by majority vote; it isn't a sole persons decision.

Rat Faced
04-02-2009, 06:27 PM
Of course, they can only vote according to the information they're given...:whistling

j2k4
04-02-2009, 08:06 PM
Of course, they can only vote according to the information they're given...:whistling

Yes, certain information is kinda iffy.

You gotta watch the Brits' offerings, from what I hear.

j2k4
04-02-2009, 08:09 PM
We already arm the Mexican drug cartels...

Oops.

Turns out to be less-than-true...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

clocker
04-02-2009, 08:59 PM
What part of that do you find problematic, Kev?



"Let's do what we can with what we know," he said. "We know that one hell of a lot of firearms come from the United States because our gun market is wide open."
So it's undisputed that we do, in fact, provide arms to Mexican cartels.
And this is OK because China and Russian and pretty much anyone with an anvil- you know, all the cool kids- are doing it too.

Right.

j2k4
04-02-2009, 10:21 PM
What part of that do you find problematic, Kev?



"Let's do what we can with what we know," he said. "We know that one hell of a lot of firearms come from the United States because our gun market is wide open."
So it's undisputed that we do, in fact, provide arms to Mexican cartels.
And this is OK because China and Russian and pretty much anyone with an anvil- you know, all the cool kids- are doing it too.

Right.

Well, I took the small liberty of assuming the fact of the White House's stating that "90 percent of the cartels' weapons come from the US" was found to be wildly excessive (the actual figure is about 17 percent) might change the presumptions of liberal people such as yourself, given your normal reliance on "facts", but, since the actual facts are not the ones you prefer to use, I will say here that I cited the article for the consumption of people other than yourself, because it seems you think that 17 equals 90.

It's a brand of math I can't quite come to grips with, but hey.

clocker
04-02-2009, 11:17 PM
Well, I took the small liberty of assuming ...
No, the liberty you took was to put words in my mouth.
I never mentioned any amounts/percentages- this has been all your doing.
I said " we arm the Mexican drug cartels", which your very own source article confirms in it's closing sentence.

So what if the real number is 17%?
That's OK?

Does your penchant for unfettered capitalism require you to consider 17% not too high but rather too low?
There's a huge demand down there- only three days truck ride from almost anywhere in the US- and we're losing marketshare to the Chinese?

j2k4
04-02-2009, 11:52 PM
No, the liberty you took was to put words in my mouth.
I never mentioned any amounts/percentages

Ah.

Well, okay then.

To what/whom do you attribute the fact of American guns in the hands of the cartels - responsible gun owners, or some sort of criminal element(1), and (2), do you suppose any other country/entity might be responsible for an equal or larger percentage of the cartel armament.

Oh, and what do you think we should do about the guns, anyhow.

Rat Faced
04-03-2009, 01:13 AM
... because it seems you think that 17 equals 90.

It's a brand of math I can't quite come to grips with, but hey.

Really? I thought you were a businessman.

This is called "Creative Accounting", used by Corporations in an unregulated Market :whistling

clocker
04-03-2009, 01:40 AM
No, the liberty you took was to put words in my mouth.
I never mentioned any amounts/percentages

Ah.

Well, okay then.

To what/whom do you attribute the fact of American guns in the hands of the cartels - responsible gun owners, or some sort of criminal element(1),
Neither.
Stupidly lax control over sales/shipment of weapons is the root cause.
Perfectly legal- thanks to the absurdly disproportionate influence of the NRA.

and (2), do you suppose any other country/entity might be responsible for an equal or larger percentage of the cartel armament.Don't see the relevance.
We can only control how our country responds and stopping our (putative) 17% of the arms flow is a beginning.


Oh, and what do you think we should do about the guns, anyhow.
I think guns should be banned, sales of the weaponry and ammunition should be terminated immediately.

j2k4
04-03-2009, 09:54 AM
Oh, and what do you think we should do about the guns, anyhow.
I think guns should be banned, sales of the weaponry and ammunition should be terminated immediately.

Well, if that's what it comes down to, then we'll agree to disagree.

I don't want to be at the mercy of some criminal with a gun who decides he wants my stuff, and I want to be able to hunt if I like.

I have participated in myriad threads about gun control/elimination for reference.

clocker
04-03-2009, 12:03 PM
As have I.

So you're going to sidestep the whole issue of shipping arms to Mexico under cover of the "self-defense" and "banging Bambi with my Barrett" line of reasoning?

Thank God you didn't stoop to the mealy-mouthed "Guns don't kill people...people kill people!" trope.

j2k4
04-03-2009, 07:23 PM
As have I.

So you're going to sidestep the whole issue of shipping arms to Mexico under cover of the "self-defense" and "banging Bambi with my Barrett" line of reasoning?

Thank God you didn't stoop to the mealy-mouthed "Guns don't kill people...people kill people!" trope.

So your contention is that the firearms manufacturers are selling arms directly to the cartels, huh?

clocker
04-03-2009, 09:44 PM
No, I'm saying that the arms maunfacturers, abetted by the NRA, have systematically gutted any attempts to regulate the sale and transport of weapons...which makes it absurdly simple for the weapons to make it into the cartel's hands.

j2k4
04-04-2009, 02:28 PM
No, I'm saying that the arms maunfacturers, abetted by the NRA, have systematically gutted any attempts to regulate the sale and transport of weapons...which makes it absurdly simple for the weapons to make it into the cartel's hands.

Ah, good...thank you for providing me with this superb example of liberal-think.

Problem:

Mexican drug-cartel violence, at such levels and in such proximity to the US as to demand our attention/intervention.

Now, if we somehow manage to deny these fellows access to the 17% of their arsenal we "contribute", we might presume a corresponding drop in violence, yes?

So, let's say we do this, with utter efficiency, and further ice the cake by enacting domestic gun control whereby all arms are confiscated from the populace.

I submit that you would quickly lose the benefit of having deprived the cartels of that 17%, because you've done nothing whatsoever about the proximity problem, which problem would be worsened by the fact of the US citizenry having been disarmed...and don't say we could bridge the gap with border patrol or other law enforcement, 'cuz you know that's not happening.

One upside, though - at least we can feel better that we're not arming them, right?

Question:

Who do we talk to at the UN to see if we can address the problem of the other 87% of their weaponry?

Again, the math - ironically, if we actually could make some headway on that front - say we assume a reduction of 60-70% overall through a combined cooperative effort - don't you think that'd be a better solution?

Personally, since the border has become so blurred in recent years, I would propose we go in with our military (after all, the Mexican boys are there, right?) and wipe every last one of them out, scorched-earth-style.

We could bring our guns home safe and sound.

That's just me, though.

Funny; I thought I started this thread to talk about helping out Japan...

clocker
04-04-2009, 06:20 PM
Ah, good...thank you for providing me with this superb example of liberal-think.

Thanks for responding with such a great example of conservative-think.
Which basically begins with a self-pitying tossing up of the hands- "What good will it do to disarm, when nobody else is doing it and only criminals will then be armed?"- and finishes with that well proven solution- "We'll invade with our military".

Had you somehow managed to include your belief in the innate goodness of corporations, you'd have a trifecta going on.


A man opened fire on officers during a domestic disturbance call Saturday morning, killing three of them, a police official said. Friends said he had been upset recently about losing his job and that he feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.
Another great example of conservative-think.

lamuller
04-04-2009, 08:00 PM
What part of that do you find problematic, Kev?

So it's undisputed that we do, in fact, provide arms to Mexican cartels.
And this is OK because China and Russian and pretty much anyone with an anvil- you know, all the cool kids- are doing it too.

Right.

Well, I took the small liberty of assuming the fact of the White House's stating that "90 percent of the cartels' weapons come from the US" was found to be wildly excessive (the actual figure is about 17 percent) might change the presumptions of liberal people such as yourself, given your normal reliance on "facts", but, since the actual facts are not the ones you prefer to use, I will say here that I cited the article for the consumption of people other than yourself, because it seems you think that 17 equals 90.

It's a brand of math I can't quite come to grips with, but hey.

!7% makes it right or better?
I read your what you write, I got to think that you are a retard or an idiot, sorry I can't find any other explanation, you are to much of a simple man to be a conservative.
I hope you find peace in your heart, because so far you don't make sence in any of you writings, maybe it is because you are divorced and can't find anyone to deal with you, so change your tune, women like men that have unlimited knowledge about everything. kisses to you, just try.

j2k4
04-04-2009, 09:00 PM
Thanks for responding with such a great example of conservative-think.
Which basically begins with a self-pitying tossing up of the hands- "What good will it do to disarm, when nobody else is doing it and only criminals will then be armed?"- and finishes with that well proven solution- "We'll invade with our military".

Had you somehow managed to include your belief in the innate goodness of corporations, you'd have a trifecta going on.


A man opened fire on officers during a domestic disturbance call Saturday morning, killing three of them, a police official said. Friends said he had been upset recently about losing his job and that he feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.
Another great example of conservative-think.

A typical mis-reading of my post.

I say, attack the problem, with an eye toward a solution, you say, take our cards off the table but leave all of our chips in the pot, and feel good that we've assuaged our guilt while the cartels continue to kidnap and kill.

A great example of liberal non-think.

j2k4
04-04-2009, 09:09 PM
!7% makes it right or better?
I read your what you write, I got to think that you are a retard or an idiot, sorry I can't find any other explanation, you are to much of a simple man to be a conservative.

You read it?

You obviously don't understand it, and the reason you "can't find any other explanation" is due to your having been dropped on your head when you were young, perhaps by your drug-addled and fumble-fingered mother - I can only guess.


I hope you find peace in your heart, because so far you don't make sence in any of you writings, maybe it is because you are divorced and can't find anyone to deal with you, so change your tune, women like men that have unlimited knowledge about everything. kisses to you, just try.

I have been divorced, but am re-married to a wonderful lady (you can confirm this with Clocker, if you like).

What would you about such things, anyway - aren't you gay?

Oh, and, to get back on point:

17% is better than 90%, in this case - if you'd care to argue otherwise, I'd love to hear it.

lamuller
04-04-2009, 10:31 PM
You read it?

You obviously don't understand it, and the reason you "can't find any other explanation" is due to your having been dropped on your head when you were young, perhaps by your drug-addled and fumble-fingered mother - I can only guess.


I hope you find peace in your heart, because so far you don't make sence in any of you writings, maybe it is because you are divorced and can't find anyone to deal with you, so change your tune, women like men that have unlimited knowledge about everything. kisses to you, just try.

I have been divorced, but am re-married to a wonderful lady (you can confirm this with Clocker, if you like).

What would you about such things, anyway - aren't you gay?

Oh, and, to get back on point:

17% is better than 90%, in this case - if you'd care to argue otherwise, I'd love to hear it.

Oh baby, maybe you would like to talk to the spouses, to the kids to the families of the Pittsburgh, to the the one's in NY and tell them the guns that killed their families were friendly guns, maybe you want to tell them, that was God's fault or God's plan, who know, you may even tell them you are an idiot.
When you have something to prove, there is something wrong with that picture.
Clocker by the way is a very smart person, you wish you were half as smart as he is.
Is that wonderful lady a man with a huge d**K? I don't care anyway, other that you are a wacko, you are one of those that would get a gun and would kill anyone because God told you so.

Rat Faced
04-04-2009, 11:25 PM
kev, she found you out..

clocker
04-05-2009, 12:35 AM
I say, attack the problem, with an eye toward a solution, you say, take our cards off the table but leave all of our chips in the pot, and feel good that we've assuaged our guilt while the cartels continue to kidnap and kill.

Attack the problem how, Kev?
Since restricting the flow of American arms- be it 90%, 17% or just 1%- is obviously off the table for you...just what did you have in mind?
More hand wringing and calls to action...applicable to other countries only?

I'm assuming your invasion talk was just an attempt at Cheneyesque humor.

@lamuller:
Indeed, I can and will confirm that j2 is married to a peach of a woman and he is one of the least likely to go on a religion-fueled shooting spree.
Cross him at 9-ball and all bets are off though.

j2k4
04-05-2009, 06:20 AM
You read it?

You obviously don't understand it, and the reason you "can't find any other explanation" is due to your having been dropped on your head when you were young, perhaps by your drug-addled and fumble-fingered mother - I can only guess.



I have been divorced, but am re-married to a wonderful lady (you can confirm this with Clocker, if you like).

What would you about such things, anyway - aren't you gay?

Oh, and, to get back on point:

17% is better than 90%, in this case - if you'd care to argue otherwise, I'd love to hear it.

Oh baby, maybe you would like to talk to the spouses, to the kids to the families of the Pittsburgh, to the the one's in NY and tell them the guns that killed their families were friendly guns, maybe you want to tell them, that was God's fault or God's plan, who know, you may even tell them you are an idiot.
When you have something to prove, there is something wrong with that picture.
Clocker by the way is a very smart person, you wish you were half as smart as he is.
Is that wonderful lady a man with a huge d**K? I don't care anyway, other that you are a wacko, you are one of those that would get a gun and would kill anyone because God told you so.

So, you are gay, then.




I say, attack the problem, with an eye toward a solution, you say, take our cards off the table but leave all of our chips in the pot, and feel good that we've assuaged our guilt while the cartels continue to kidnap and kill.

Attack the problem how, Kev?
Since restricting the flow of American arms- be it 90%, 17% or just 1%- is obviously off the table for you...just what did you have in mind?
More hand wringing and calls to action...applicable to other countries only?

I'm assuming your invasion talk was just an attempt at Cheneyesque humor.

No, it's not off the table...just don't act as if subtracting our 17% is all that needs done.

We should have been minding our store all along, but without the balance dealt with, we're spinning our wheels, and merely doing what "feels good" doesn't cut it; take our 17% out of the equation, and nothing changes.

What then?

clocker
04-05-2009, 09:37 AM
I never said that subtracting our contribution is all that needs doing.
(And BTW...your 17% number is just as suspect as the White House's 90% given that the majority of weapons were not tested for origin).

It's nice to see you admit that we "should have been minding the store all along"...why do you think we haven't?
What special interests benefit from our laxity?

Finally, remove our 17% (or whatever the real number might be) and the problem is reduced by 17%...hardly a "nothing" result.
At the very least, acting unilaterally removes the stigma of "do as I say, not as I do" when negotiating with other involved parties.

j2k4
04-11-2009, 02:57 AM
I have a problem with this phrase...


Finally, remove our 17% (or whatever the real number might be) and the problem is reduced by 17%...hardly a "nothing" result.

...specifically, the "or whatever the real number might be" part.

If the "real" number were 90% (as was first ventured) and we removed it, it is very (very) safe to say the result would have been of commensurately greater dimension, and the very possibility of a 90% reduction would spur greater effort/effectiveness than would the 17% (or whatever the real number might be).

The lesson to be learned is downright Hitlerian:

A lie told in aid of an ostensibly virtuous cause becomes virtuous in it's turn.

clocker
04-11-2009, 12:36 PM
I don't get your point.
90% of the weapons submitted for testing did come from America.

The fact that most of the confiscated firepower was not even submitted hardly diminishes our complicity.

Your resistance seems to mirror the official gun lobby meme that the problem is so overwhelming that nothing will have a meaningful effect, therefore, do nothing.
In fact, better than even trying to enforce existing laws or- God forbid- enact new ones, let's weaken the laws already in effect, so even more people can be armed.

This attitude is mirrored in your original post where you suggest that the world's problem is not too much weaponry but rather , too little...so let's spread it around even further.

j2k4
04-11-2009, 12:54 PM
I don't get your point.
90% of the weapons submitted for testing did come from America.

The fact that most of the confiscated firepower was not even submitted hardly diminishes our complicity.

Your resistance seems to mirror the official gun lobby meme that the problem is so overwhelming that nothing will have a meaningful effect, therefore, do nothing.
In fact, better than even trying to enforce existing laws or- God forbid- enact new ones, let's weaken the laws already in effect, so even more people can be armed.

This attitude is mirrored in your original post where you suggest that the world's problem is not too much weaponry but rather , too little...so let's spread it around even further.

I don't get your point.

There was an obvious attempt by the Obama administration to mislead by it's mal-appropriation of the 90% figure.

If, as you say, the 17% figure is sufficiently eye-opening, why did they do this.

Ideological compulsion, perhaps.

clocker
04-11-2009, 01:02 PM
You keep dancing around the issue while trying to score political points.

Ignore the use/misuse of statistics and address the fact that by any accounting, we are supplying a shitton of weapons to Mexican cartels.

Or do you have an ideological compulsion to ignore the problem whilst sniping at Obama?

j2k4
04-11-2009, 05:41 PM
You keep dancing around the issue while trying to score political points.

Ignore the use/misuse of statistics and address the fact that by any accounting, we are supplying a shitton of weapons to Mexican cartels.

Or do you have an ideological compulsion to ignore the problem whilst sniping at Obama?

Sniping at Obama?

Well, though the media reported the administration's statement(s), I'll say mentioning
the facts is merely in aid of noting that the administration is, or certainly seems to be, the sole source propagating that particular tidbit.

Kind of you to mention my mentioning it, btw.

Please to indicate anywhere I have derided/ignored any attempt to deal decisively with any illicit distribution of arms born of what you would no doubt refer to as "typical republican greed".

Might I also point out that it is precisely the attitude of, Ignore the use/misuse of statistics... that often brings our community of elected rapscallions to a fine focus, and further point out my observation that there are no angels on either side, and that you should concede the point without my resorting this absurd (yet strangely compelling) arm-twisting.

clocker
04-11-2009, 10:12 PM
You keep dancing around the issue while trying to score political points.

Ignore the use/misuse of statistics and address the fact that by any accounting, we are supplying a shitton of weapons to Mexican cartels.

Or do you have an ideological compulsion to ignore the problem whilst sniping at Obama?

Sniping at Obama?

Well, though the media reported the administration's statement(s), I'll say mentioning
the facts is merely in aid of noting that the administration is, or certainly seems to be, the sole source propagating that particular tidbit.

Kind of you to mention my mentioning it, btw.

Please to indicate anywhere I have derided/ignored any attempt to deal decisively with any illicit distribution of arms born of what you would no doubt refer to as "typical republican greed".

Might I also point out that it is precisely the attitude of, Ignore the use/misuse of statistics... that often brings our community of elected rapscallions to a fine focus, and further point out my observation that there are no angels on either side, and that you should concede the point without my resorting this absurd (yet strangely compelling) arm-twisting.
So that's it, eh?

Let me summarize the conservative solution to American arms flowing across our border..."We do nothing".

"We do nothing" because it's better to try to pin the blame on the democrats.
"We do nothing" because it's better to hide behind semantics and statistics and while doing so, maybe the problem will just go away.
"We do nothing" because hey!, it's not ALL our fault and even if we stop- the vaguely defined and imprecisely tallied American arms- somebody else will just step in and fill our shoes, so what's the point?
"We do nothing" because anything we do will probably infringe our precious Second Amendment rights or some how, some way inconvenience a major corporation.

But mostly we just do nothing.

Christ, no wonder you were so thoroughly repudiated at the polls this time around.
Doing nothing is all you're good for.

j2k4
04-12-2009, 01:13 AM
Sniping at Obama?

Well, though the media reported the administration's statement(s), I'll say mentioning
the facts is merely in aid of noting that the administration is, or certainly seems to be, the sole source propagating that particular tidbit.

Kind of you to mention my mentioning it, btw.

Please to indicate anywhere I have derided/ignored any attempt to deal decisively with any illicit distribution of arms born of what you would no doubt refer to as "typical republican greed".

Might I also point out that it is precisely the attitude of, Ignore the use/misuse of statistics... that often brings our community of elected rapscallions to a fine focus, and further point out my observation that there are no angels on either side, and that you should concede the point without my resorting this absurd (yet strangely compelling) arm-twisting.
So that's it, eh?

Let me summarize the conservative solution to American arms flowing across our border..."We do nothing".

"We do nothing" because it's better to try to pin the blame on the democrats.
"We do nothing" because it's better to hide behind semantics and statistics and while doing so, maybe the problem will just go away.
"We do nothing" because hey!, it's not ALL our fault and even if we stop- the vaguely defined and imprecisely tallied American arms- somebody else will just step in and fill our shoes, so what's the point?
"We do nothing" because anything we do will probably infringe our precious Second Amendment rights or some how, some way inconvenience a major corporation.

But mostly we just do nothing.

Christ, no wonder you were so thoroughly repudiated at the polls this time around.
Doing nothing is all you're good for.

You may attribute any or all of these things to republicans...not conservatives.

I can afford to be magnanimous, given democrat culpability over Fannie and Freddie, et.al.

clocker
04-12-2009, 04:22 AM
So what does a conservative do about this.
Or are there yet more straw men sitting on your bench?

j2k4
04-12-2009, 12:13 PM
So what does a conservative do about this.
Or are there yet more straw men sitting on your bench?

Conservatives are thin on the ground in D.C.

We'll have to do the job with hard-hitting commentary.

What sort of super-effective steps are the dems (with their majority and all) contemplating?

I mean, hey - the dems can stop the republicans, why can't they stop the gun manufacturers?

clocker
04-12-2009, 12:17 PM
Still dancing, Kev, still evading.

What- if anything- would you propose?

j2k4
04-12-2009, 12:23 PM
Still dancing, Kev, still evading.

What- if anything- would you propose?

Well, I'm dancing with you, you see.

Let's see...I suppose I would track the production runs of the mfrs, and let them know if any of it shows up on the border (the limits of our purview, absent a competent and cooperative Mexican government) they will suffer some sort of horrible corporate fate.

Your turn, please.

clocker
04-12-2009, 12:52 PM
Ban the sale/possession of military grade assault weapons.

Require extensive and mandatory background checks for all gun sales.
This includes the loopholes for gun sales at shows.
These background checks would be Federal instead of state controlled to eliminate the possibility of crossing state lines to take advantage of looser restrictions in neighboring states.

Mandatory- and not subject to parole reduction- extra sentencing for using a gun during the commission of a crime.

Immediate ban on armor piercing ammunition.

Monitoring and restriction of distribution (with suitable accountability) of weapons at the manufacturing level.

Reregistration- with proof of possession- of privately owned guns on a short timetable...say every two years.
Too many "lost" guns seem to show up in the commission of crimes far removed from where they were supposed to be. Fines/penalties (up to and including incarceration) imposed on registered owner who cannot account for weapons registered to them.

Curtailment of concealed carry permits.

There, that's a start.