Promote the Gun, Uplift the Second Amendment

Originally posted by elysiumfire
GoOfYFoOt:

I will refer you to the bathing frog, and the slowly boiled pot of water...

Hmm, can I refer you to what would really happen?

If you put a frog into pan of boiling hot water, the chances are you would kill it by scalding immediately...it would not jump out. Put it into a pot of water that is slowly being heated, and it has a greater option for jumping out as it starts to feel uncomfortable and begins to sense the danger. Peace.

It was a metaphor. I have never tried it. Have you? Or are you assuming the result?
I would prefer that we not begin lowering and debasing ourselves, in these discussions, as we have been able to converse on an elevated level to this point, in your thread.

Perhaps it was an ill-conceived usage. Let me reconcile with a different one.

I used to catch barking tree frogs as a young man, and sell them for money. They are quite difficult to see and to access in their usual habitat. But, during their mating season, they will come down from the trees at night and travel, sometimes large distances to find a body of water suitable, for their offspring to thrive. This pond will usually be stagnant, remote, large enough to maintain water during the heat of summer, but not so large that predators would be rampant.

To catch the frogs, one must wade into the pond in the middle of the woods, in the middle of the night, and wait. You will hear their mating call, as they they enter the water. They will take in so much air that they literally float on top of the pond. And then, the call, that sounds much like a small dog, yipping. Hence the term, "barking" tree frog...
Now, you don't want to go after the easy targets. The one that are puffed up, highly visible and doing what they do. For they are bringing in other frogs with their calls. What you want to do, is go after the ones that have already completed the act of pro-creation but are still paired up. Hiding. With nothing but their eyes and noses above the water line. But you have to move ever so slowly. Inch by inch, foot by foot, you must not disturb the top of the water too much, or your prey will separate and dive down, and you'll go home wet and broke! When you get within arm's length, you slowly begin reaching, at just at the last 12 inches or so, you strike like a cobra, grabbing whatever touches the palm of your hand! Success would a male and female frog. Failure would be pond grass or a water mocassin...
But, by doing it this way, you encourage the continuation of the location for harvesting, as well as maintain the influx of frogs by the constant calling going on, which increases your take on that evening. And, you accomplish all of your goals, without interrupting the natural process.

NOW.... Apply all of this, to the situation at hand, and we are done!

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

 

Meethinks too much 'Braveheart' and not enough reality- who do you think these 'cowards' are that are coming to 'take your freedom'?
To be honest, it all has a very hollow ring, and seems like grand words to stop people taking your toys away.

Excellent analogy...But as I am a direct descendant of Robert the Bruce and not William Wallace, it seems you just missed your mark...

GoOfYFoOt:

I would prefer that we not begin lowering and debasing ourselves, in these discussions, as we have been able to converse on an elevated level to this point, in your thread.

Come on, Goofy, don't go getting all sensitive on me now. During our discussions we are going to cross swords on occasions, afterall, we are on opposite sides of the fence regarding America's gun culture. We are having a polite and civilised discussion, it should not mean we avoid the spiky areas just in case we get pricked.

If you'd have used the metphor on my thread, I would've stated the same thing. I'm not having a pop at you personally, I'm actually having a go at the erroneous belief about the bathing frog. Keep perspective mate, because that is what will keep things civil. Peace

...you accomplish all of your goals, without interrupting the natural process.

So, let me get this straight. In order for you to make some money by selling Barking Tree Frogs, you sneak up on them whilst they are having sex and are 'coupled'...and you think you are not interrupting a 'natural process'. Are you kidding me?

Apply all of this, to the situation at hand, and we are done!

No! We are not done, not by a long way. Your story places you in the same position as Obama. Does the Barking Tree Frog not have any natural rights? That is to say, for it to go about its business of being a Barking Tree Frog, having an eye towards natural predators. You as a human predator, not as it's natural predator, come along and harvest them in the belief that you are helping to maintain some form of natural order. Isn't Obama exercising an equivalence to your harvesting of the frogs, by trying to maintain some form of social order by looking at banning (harvesting) assault weapons for the domestic market?

Originally posted by elysiumfire
GoOfYFoOt:

I would prefer that we not begin lowering and debasing ourselves, in these discussions, as we have been able to converse on an elevated level to this point, in your thread.

Come on, Goofy, don't go getting all sensitive on me now. During our discussions we are going to cross swords on occasions, afterall, we are on opposite sides of the fence regarding America's gun culture. We are having a polite and civilised discussion, it should not mean we avoid the spiky areas just in case we get pricked.

If you'd have used the metphor on my thread, I would've stated the same thing. I'm not having a pop at you personally, I'm actually having a go at the erroneous belief about the bathing frog. Keep perspective mate, because that is what will keep things civil. Peace

On the contrary! I believe I have handled myself with the utmost civility and decorum!
I have strove to maintain perspective. And, even completed some moderate soul-searching to confirm my own beliefs.
After all, it is I, who has been the recipient of a total bombardment, by those who can't seem to fully understand my position. And this has been an on-going assault, only heightened to unprecedented levels in the wake of this most recent tragedy!
So, I feel that I have been extraordinarily polite...Have I not?

I was always under the impression that you and I would reach an impass. No delusions, there. As it seems that you are as unwilling to concede certain principals, as I am.

But that does not preclude you or I, from making the attempt, does it?

You and I both know, that when you make an effort to shake someone's foundation, there is always the possibility of either a vicious retaliation, or a major collapse of their belief system, which in and of itself, can be dangerous for all.

And please...call me Bill.

GoOfYFoOt:

On the contrary! I believe I have handled myself with the utmost civility and decorum!
I have strove to maintain perspective. And, even completed some moderate soul-searching to confirm my own beliefs. After all, it is I, who has been the recipient of a total bombardment, by those who can't seem to fully understand my position. And this has been an on-going assault, only heightened to unprecedented levels in the wake of this most recent tragedy! So, I feel that I have been extraordinarily polite...Have I not?

I was always under the impression that you and I would reach an impass. No delusions, there. As it seems that you are as unwilling to concede certain principals, as I am. But that does not preclude you or I, from making the attempt, does it?

You and I both know, that when you make an effort to shake someone's foundation, there is always the possibility of either a vicious retaliation, or a major collapse of their belief system, which in and of itself, can be dangerous for all.

Good on yer, Bill!

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Isn't Obama exercising an equivalence to your harvesting of the frogs, by trying to maintain some form of social order by looking at banning (harvesting) assault weapons for the domestic market?

So, are you admitting that the banning of "assault rifles" (a term that absolutely, in no way, applies to the weapons available in the legal gun market) is only being considered to "grease the squeaky wheels" and would accomplish nothing in regard to senseless shootings?

Because that is the ONLY outcome I can perceive from such an action. What Obama should do, is add a little bit of policy to the end of that...

Ban all "assault rifles" from being possessed or accessed by criminals and crazies! And, leave the law-abiding citizen alone. "Don't Tread On Me!" I have done NOTHING wrong!

It seems much more sensible to go after the ones that commit these crimes, than to only affect those who don't.
If someone is a danger to others, we lock them up! We don't move society away from them!

The whole notion that removing something from those who respect and rely on it, so those that shouldn't have it, can't get at it, is LUDICROUS!

We turn the handles in, on the pots of boiling water. We don't ban stoves!
We lock up our cabinets from our children. We don't ban the making of cleaning chemicals!
We punish and educate our drunk drivers. We don't abolish autos and alcohol!

It's the mindset of the criminally insane that is the problem here!

But to read some of the posts on this site from BOTH sides of the argument, it is easily envisioned, the same frothing at the mouth, violent physical outbursts, and pure hatred displayed, that is normally reserved for those that we are trying to absolve ourselves from!!!

What gives? Look in your heart. Who are you really afraid of?

GoOfYFoOt:

So, are you admitting that the banning of "assault rifles" (a term that absolutely, in no way, applies to the weapons available in the legal gun market) is only being considered to "grease the squeaky wheels" and would accomplish nothing in regard to senseless shootings?

I believed I was talking about 'equivalences. Wasn't the ban on assault rifles, or any other form of assault firearm, allowed to run out without any debate for its continuation in 2004? If the ban was simply allowed to 'run out', it would then have made it legal to buy an assault firearm in the domestic market.

Bill, you live out in the wild country. I don't doubt that you have a justified argument for owning a gun for your own personal protection against the dangerous things you can encounter out there. I just think that your belief in the 2nd amendment right to own a gun safeguards you against a tyrannical government is extremely naive. Nevertheless, the 'right' is there, and it was very relevant at the time of its framing back in the 18th century, I just don't think it is as relevant, or as safeguarding here in the 21st century.

As for Obama's instigation of looking at banning assault firearms for the dometic market...well, its not an overtly radical move is it? In fact, it is an easy option for him to make, and provides him with a demonstable act of actually being seen to doing something. Personally, banning that which was not too long ago banned anyway, isn't (in my view) enough of a move. It helps, but it is nowhere near enough. It is merely political subterfuge to make the administration look all empathetic and moral...he's just scoring political points. Could I be more cycnical?

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Could I be more cycnical?

Not at all. You are seeing things, a bit more in line with how we do.

That is exactly what is is! It's just fluff! The AWB, or "assault weapons ban" enacted during the Clinton administration, just made minor changes to the law. The guns that fit the govt's. description, were not allowed to be manufactured or imported into the U.S. But the ones that were here, weren't affected. There was also a magazine capacity limit of 10 rounds, enacted. But an individual could just load 30 10-round mags, instead of 10 30 rounders. And, youtube can show you how fast someone with a bit of training and practice can reload a weapon.

But we, (as well as Obama and our electeds) really should be discussing things that could actually make a difference. Not, just sending Carney out to test the political waters with a vague, well-drafted rhetoric...

I do see some who are making an effort, both here as well as in the political arenas. And this gives me some relief and hope. May it continue until some much needed facts are uncovered, so that we may make sound decisions on tough choices.