Invasion of US Capitol building

[Jacob]

I'm like a fish, rising to the bait.....
rafezetter's line of reasoning on guns would also have us banning the private ownership of cars, because of their maiming and killing of "innocent people AND CHILDREN", and their "threat to everyday innocent, hardworking citizens".
...also alcohol,
...maybe knives,
...definitely ban protest marches, (also attending football matches)
...perhaps just get rid of all free choice, to prevent the threat of mayhem from "fringe" elements and from ordinary people's bad choices ?

Despite the risks, I prefer the idea of free choice, (within a framework of laws so that law breakers can be prosecuted), and the freedom to protest without censorship if I think laws are not being enforced, (or if I think laws need to be added/changed).
While the media representation of American life has aspects that seem obnoxious to me, the few days I've spent in that country have been very pleasant, and I don't have a vote there to object to their free choices.

There's a huge difference between guns and the other items on your list.
Guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing or wounding people, efficiently, from a distance and in large numbers. They have no other function.
In turn this means they are only of interest to people who entertain the idea of killing other people.

 

[Jameshow]

A gun is as varied as a tank compared to a unimog both are all terrain vehicles but one is built solely for war whilst the other for agriculture / forestry work.....

Cheers James

 

[selectortone]

I'm like a fish, rising to the bait.....
rafezetter's line of reasoning on guns would also have us banning the private ownership of cars, because of their maiming and killing of "innocent people AND CHILDREN", and their "threat to everyday innocent, hardworking citizens".

The last time I bought a car, its suitability for killing people wasn't one of the criteria on my list of desirable features. I'm fairly sure that it isn't a feature when cars are in the design process either.

 

[kwigly]

All the people I know who have guns (outside of police and military), got them for the sport of target shooting (paper targets, clay birds), or got them for shooting wild animals (hunting, use on the trap line, control of "nuisance" animals). As far as I know, the fact that guns could also kill people isn't one of their purchasing factors, the same as the killing capacity of their private cars is not a purchasing factor. Owners of both guns and cars are required to pass tests, be licensed to use them, and follow various laws in ownership/usage.
The laws are determined through the democratic process, and I expect they will evolve according to the population's perceptions of the threat to "innocent people AND CHILDREN", and the "threat to everyday innocent, hardworking citizens".

 

[Jacob]

All the people I know who have guns (outside of police and military), got them for the sport of target shooting (paper targets, clay birds), or got them for shooting wild animals (hunting, use on the trap line, control of "nuisance" animals). As far as I know, the fact that guns could also kill people isn't one of their purchasing factors, the same as the killing capacity of their private cars is not a purchasing factor. Owners of both guns and cars are required to pass tests, be licensed to use them, and follow various laws in ownership/usage.
The laws are determined through the democratic process, and I expect they will evolve according to the population's perceptions of the threat to "innocent people AND CHILDREN", and the "threat to everyday innocent, hardworking citizens".

So many innocent uses! Why do you put 'AND CHILDREN' in capitals?
How would you control them to prevent SCHOOL AND OTHER MASS SHOOTINGS? Do you think it was OK for the various recent protests to have people BREAKING IN to Capitol Hill CARRYING MILITARY WEAPONS?
Or are these and the other 30,000 gun deaths per year in USA, just the price of the freedom for other harmless people to shoot at paper targets and clay pigeons?

 

[TRITON]

All the people I know who have guns (outside of police and military), got them for the sport of target shooting (paper targets, clay birds), or got them for shooting wild animals (hunting, use on the trap line, control of "nuisance" animals). As far as I know, the fact that guns could also kill people isn't one of their purchasing factors, the same as the killing capacity of their private cars is not a purchasing factor. Owners of both guns and cars are required to pass tests, be licensed to use them, and follow various laws in ownership/usage.
The laws are determined through the democratic process, and I expect they will evolve according to the population's perceptions of the threat to "innocent people AND CHILDREN", and the "threat to everyday innocent, hardworking citizens".

Sorry bud, thats quite a simplistic view, and "the fact that guns could also kill people isn't one of their purchasing factors" is downright nonsense.
Bought it because they like playing with them ?, or target shooting, and yup some do like target shooting, but their primary design and use is to kill people with. And the vast majority are buying for defence.

Accepting that they are for their own and family defence from other gun owners, so they acknowledge at least that they are there to kill any threat.

The car comparison is also rather simplistic, which is me being kind, and in truth is also total nonsense.

 

[billw]

The last time I bought a car, its suitability for killing people wasn't one of the criteria on my list of desirable features. I'm fairly sure that it isn't a feature when cars are in the design process either.

Indeed I'm pretty sure that car manufacturers make them to be as safe as possible in the event of collision - hence why bonnet mounted insignia were banned.

 

[mikej460]

Apart from the obviously real evil Russian hackers, has Trump and half the USA spent the last 4 years in delusional lala land? Is everything false?

In English parlance 'it is deeply regrettable'..

 

[gregmcateer]

In an effort to lighten the mood, I thought I'd post this link to a very funny comedian call Jim Jefferies.
It is however, his sketch about gun control. It will almost certainly annoy some, but may also amuse some of the annoyed - as he observes.

But I do think it is worth a watch. In two parts, second suggested as first ends, IIRC. Apologies in advance to anyone offended by
a. Rude words
b. Comments about guns!

 

[Jacob]

In an effort to lighten the mood, I thought I'd post this link to a very funny comedian call Jim Jefferies.
It is however, his sketch about gun control. It will almost certainly annoy some, but may also amuse some of the annoyed - as he observes.

But I do think it is worth a watch. In two parts, second suggested as first ends, IIRC. Apologies in advance to anyone offended by
a. Rude words
b. Comments about guns!

Very funny and bang on the nail.
My limited experiences of guns:
as kids playing around on local golf course with an air rifle - golf ball target - lucky shot the pellet bounced right back and hit me between the eyes hard. Could have lost an eye instead
bonfire night party at a local farm - drunks kids leaning out of upstairs window pointing shot gun at the crowd - farmer goes mad shouts his head off- he kept it loaded in his bedroom (not in his safe the t**t) and could have been a nasty incident
school cadets - live round found in practice empty shells, hole in roof, nobody hurt
local antique pistol enthusiast had a bit of a downer - drove off to Wales and shot himself dead in his car with a Colt. Horrible mess apparently.

 

[billw]

In an effort to lighten the mood, I thought I'd post this link to a very funny comedian call Jim Jefferies.
It is however, his sketch about gun control. It will almost certainly annoy some, but may also amuse some of the annoyed - as he observes.

But I do think it is worth a watch. In two parts, second suggested as first ends, IIRC. Apologies in advance to anyone offended by
a. Rude words
b. Comments about guns!

"I keep my slaves locked in a safe"

Funniest thing I've watched in months.

 

[billw]

I've only known one person in the UK who owned a gun. He shot his wife dead.

 

[gregmcateer]

Glad to have been of service, gents.

 

[NormanB]

it's all fun and games at the "great trespass" event. If you go to actual courts in the US and make clown defenses like that, the court is insulted and any leniency you may have had is gone.

One of the problems here is actually that - that the court will often offer individuals a plea that's a tiny fraction of the max potential punishment. People who are otherwise innocent will take the plea upon legal advice that it's a safer bet than challenging based on the truth. The reason for that is simple - it takes almost no time to write a plea and keep the court docket clear for cases that need to actually appear, but it incents a lot of people who didn't do anything to be dumped in the same category as people who did and who are getting off easy on the plea.

In the event that a prosecutor really wants to get someone, then a plea isn't offered and the fight is on. Most of the trespassers here will be offered a fine and that's it (which is as it should be if someone was just flowing with the crowd and doing nothing violent). In most protests in the US, people assembling illegally usually aren't arrested, but someone taped inciting violence or carrying it out will be. We had a BLM protest here (that I didn't walk through) that did get violent, and my neighbor (a cameraman) was blindsided, knocked to the ground, knocked out and kicked. Literally saved by people who were watching a livestream from a local office and who ran out when they saw him getting beaten. At least one police car was burned and there was a fair amount of violence, but there weren't that many arrests.

So I hope we're spared of the nonsense after this that most of the capitol trespassers who did nothing other than go with the flow and then go out don't get arrested. It's generally the case for all protests here. Notable folks like the guy with the tadoos and horns, though, arrest came quickly. Same with anyone seen vandalizing or carrying things with them that they didn't own.

Be interesting to see those arrested from the ‘invasion’ turn up in front of the judge and the defence lawyer mounts the defence they were loyally following the orders of their President, who has not been arrested for an indictable offence so the order must have been legal and their responsibility is diminished.

Here is one example of what I was alluding to:

 

[Jacob]

Here is one example of what I was alluding to:

A variation on "only obeying orders"

 

[Jacob]

Just listening to Desert Island Discs. Samantha Power former UN ambassador under Obama.
Strange sensation of listening to an American politician who is intelligent, humane, imaginative, articulate, instead of the moronic Trump family and small-minded self-serving mobsters we are used to.
Sudden sense of how s**t things have been under the orange man.
And how better things could be.
Cheered me up!

BBC Radio 4 - Desert Island Discs, Samantha Power

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Just listening to Desert Island Discs. Samantha Power former UN ambassador under Obama.
Strange sensation of listening to an American politician who is intelligent, humane, imaginative, articulate, instead of the moronic Trump family and small-minded self-serving mobsters we are used to.
Sudden sense of how s**t things have been under the orange man.
And how better things could be.
Cheered me up!

BBC Radio 4 - Desert Island Discs, Samantha Power

She did the "humanitarian interventions " in Syria, Libya, Yemen etc. I suppose we can expect a lot more of that with a new democrat president- peaceful carpet bombing this time.

On a happier note, she also once referred to Hillary Clinton as a monster, and is still breathing, so on balance I think she's OK.

 

[D_W]

Here is one example of what I was alluding to:

That defense was dreamed up before the second day, though. I'd say if you have no defense, you go in with something like that ("I really did think we were authorized despite the fact that the police were literally telling us that we weren't the whole time!")

One thing is true in the US justice system - the defense you use in court will have nothing to do with reality if your defense attorney tells you that his defense is way better than your defense.

These people will be very unlucky if they find an angry partisan judge. I think they'd have been better off paying the trespassing fine and proving they didn't do any destruction themselves (I believe this is usually $50 or $150 or so).

 

[D_W]

On a happier note, she also once referred to Hillary Clinton as a monster, and is still breathing, so on balance I think she's OK.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump aren't really that much different in terms of personal qualities. I've listened to people talking about Trump (who knew him before he became president). Apparently, he was a combination of (or one or the other) an affable fellow who was a little off, or someone who had a crooked sense of humor where he only laughed at stuff that wasn't particularly funny (like someone else's misfortune). I recall Adam Carolla talking about his mother saying how dangerous Trump was and Carolla knew him personally and more or said "no, he's not evil". And Adam's mother said "you don't know him" (which is apparently what she normally says to him), to which he replied "you can't actually say that about people who I know".

Adam's not stupid, and has since more or less said "I think whatever has happened to Trump during running for President and being President, I don't think he's the same guy I knew any longer", and his comments about riling people up weren't favorable to Trump.

I actually have talked to people who have worked with or for Hillary and every one of them has said that they're working for her cause, but that she's an angry rotten awful person to the core.

She and Trump are both pure ambition -at least that's how I see them. It's not a coincidence that those types of people get to the Presidency. Obama is one of the more arrogant people I've ever heard talk, and without any real accomplishments that I'm aware of other than being groomed to be President and following advisors. His response to people in the US when they didn't like his selling of globalist policy to china (increasing the income divide, increasing barriers to entry, etc) was that "he didn't do enough to explain the policies to Americans and that's the only reason the majority didn't like some of his policies".

Translate that "they're just too dumb to understand what I'm doing" (the reason that people hated what he was doing is because they understood precisely what it was). G.W. Bush had shades of competence, intermittently, and Bill Clinton was entirely competent, but flippant about some idealistic things. I really could take or leave the last four Presidents in general.

Some of the core things that Trump has done, I'm a big fan of:
* after obama couldn't get the bump stock moved to Class III NFA devices, Trump just did an end around re: the legal discussion of what constitutes automatic fire and what doesn't and demanded it be moved to class III
* no significant wars (or spending or disabilities related to them)
* easing of a lot of regulatory overhead that squashes small business

It's not hard to list the things that I'm not a big fan of (ignorance about covid, rubbish stirring, sitting on twitter all night, ignoring reasonable advisors, refusing to admit he was wrong about something to move forward). The condition of the country as of his term was tailor made for a two-term President. Reasonable handling of covid and getting off of twitter and presenting a throwback ideal about freedom and room to achieve would've had him winning in a landslide. I can't stand to listen to him talk, but I couldn't stand listening to Obama talk, either. There aren't many politicians I can stand to hear. I loved listening to Reagan talk - but he was really good at it - and could make you forget you were listening to a politician.

 

[D_W]

Separately, I recall my grandmother's generation (she was just a little younger than reagan....and as an FDR depression survivor she HATED reagan), but she collected jokes like reagan, and after you got through the initial pleasantries, she would almost always tell a joke, and then move on to whatever the bears of the day were.

I have to admit I can't remember anyone doing that in the last 15 years - we've all become cynical, and I'm sure if you told jokes now (especially among family members) that someone would be "too smart" to think they're funny and start an argument.

The same thing is true of politics. It's like 1/3rd of the population has aspergers, oppositional disorder and anticipatory anxiety at all times (but for most, it's selective when politics comes up) and the chance of a group of people taking things for what they are (instead of getting overly literal about something that's being used as an example or as humor) is almost 100%.