Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
NYC_SKP
NYC_SKP's Journal
NYC_SKP's Journal
October 1, 2014
In case it's not self-evident, the analogy here is that some on the left would look to laws and government to be responsible for preventing calamity, to prevent irresponsibility, to "ensure" safety, while others among us prefer the notions of self-determination, responsibility, access to the tools to take care of ourselves, and training our children and family members to be aware and to be safe.
Well, neither side is completely wrong (except to any extent to which we insist the other side is completely wrong); the solutions probably exist in the universe that treats BOTH sides as valid arguments.
Most of us who support the Second Amendment also support UBCs and strict penalties for misuse and violent used of firearms, and most on the gun control side see a place for education and awareness and grant that some ownership rights are beneficial.
In any event, I really loved the piece on radio and hope you'll all take a listen to it. I'm sorry I couldn't find a written transcript.
And remember:
The world is full of bears.
Garrison Keillor on "Interventionist versus Laissez Faire" approaches to threat management.
I think the dynamic applies to the battle over gun control legislation, but also to other questions about where responsibilities rest.
I was listening to the Prairie Home Companion on Sunday and Garrison Keillor told a tale about a woman, Irene Bunsen, who was gardening when a bear came along, so the rangers were called.
The rangers said that they could come tranquilize the bear and then take it miles away but it would cost $1,350. But who would pay the cost?
The story goes on to discuss the two sides of the matter of what to do: The Interventionist versus the Laissez Faire approaches.
--- The Interventionists say "But what if there was a child, is a child not worth $1,350?".
--- The Laissez Faire people say, "Teach your children to watch where they're going. The world is full of bears."
Garrison noted that both sides are right, it's not often that you get an argument like that where you get two sides that are absolutely right yet disagree completely.
It's a short piece and really worth the few minutes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/apm-prairie-home-companions/id215352157?mt=2
The rangers said that they could come tranquilize the bear and then take it miles away but it would cost $1,350. But who would pay the cost?
The story goes on to discuss the two sides of the matter of what to do: The Interventionist versus the Laissez Faire approaches.
--- The Interventionists say "But what if there was a child, is a child not worth $1,350?".
--- The Laissez Faire people say, "Teach your children to watch where they're going. The world is full of bears."
Garrison noted that both sides are right, it's not often that you get an argument like that where you get two sides that are absolutely right yet disagree completely.
It's a short piece and really worth the few minutes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/apm-prairie-home-companions/id215352157?mt=2
In case it's not self-evident, the analogy here is that some on the left would look to laws and government to be responsible for preventing calamity, to prevent irresponsibility, to "ensure" safety, while others among us prefer the notions of self-determination, responsibility, access to the tools to take care of ourselves, and training our children and family members to be aware and to be safe.
Well, neither side is completely wrong (except to any extent to which we insist the other side is completely wrong); the solutions probably exist in the universe that treats BOTH sides as valid arguments.
Most of us who support the Second Amendment also support UBCs and strict penalties for misuse and violent used of firearms, and most on the gun control side see a place for education and awareness and grant that some ownership rights are beneficial.
In any event, I really loved the piece on radio and hope you'll all take a listen to it. I'm sorry I couldn't find a written transcript.
And remember:
The world is full of bears.
September 19, 2014
Limiting gun ownership to solve gun violence is like limiting books to solve illiteracy.
You really don't get the analogy, do you?
I try, that's all I can do.
September 5, 2014
Individual stores remain free to ask anyone to leave and may create, if they like, a policy of no guns for that store.
/rant
Pro Tip-- In case you really think this will make anyone more safe, studies show that most murderous gun nuts will disregard store policies. Just sayin'.
PS, I personally think Open Carry protesters are fools, and do nothing but scare people without purpose. Not sure if they're even legit and put me to mind of James O'Keefe.
Krogers. Has anyone actually seen a gun nut with a rifle in a Krogers?
Or a Target, Starbuck, or Walmart?
And if you did, what did you do?
I'm, frankly, suspect of any Bloomberg funded mission like this latest one to intimidate Krogers to create a new meaningless policy.
As mayor, he authorized "Stop and Frisk", an unconstitutional policy that disproportionately targeted people of color.
His PR person, Sharon Watts, formerly represented Monsanto. She's a pro and pros are slick, sometimes dishonest.
So, one or two Open Carry gun nuts walk into a Kroger, or maybe the pics are staged, and we're supposed to BOYCOTT them now?
Kroger has 2,640 stores employing more than 310,000 employees, 75% of them are UNION employees.
Here is Krogers' statement on this latest desperate move by Bloomberg Watts, and I think it's solid:
"our long-standing policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws. ... We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue, and we trust them to be responsible in our stores."
Individual stores remain free to ask anyone to leave and may create, if they like, a policy of no guns for that store.
/rant
Pro Tip-- In case you really think this will make anyone more safe, studies show that most murderous gun nuts will disregard store policies. Just sayin'.
PS, I personally think Open Carry protesters are fools, and do nothing but scare people without purpose. Not sure if they're even legit and put me to mind of James O'Keefe.
September 4, 2014
Map of US counties and what they have taken in military surplus gear.
Including numbers of:
Aircraft, Armored vehicles, Body armor, Grenade launchers, Night vision, and Assault rifles.
My county has refused everything except night vision equipment.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/15/us/surplus-military-equipment-map.html?_r=0
September 2, 2014
Thanks!
SKP is short for 'escapee', inspired by Barney Fife.
I came to NYC sight unseen for university and work, then got out before it became Disneyfied!
Profile Information
Name: N/AGender: Do not display
Hometown: The Golden State
Home country: www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&f
Current location: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1243&pid=30906
Member since: Thu May 29, 2008, 11:43 PM
Number of posts: 68,644