• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I hope we are more prepared than France.

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
You're more likely to be bitten by a shark, while being struck by lightning, than you are of being the victim of Islamic terrorism in America.

Just don't travel to the Middle East.

And don't buy lottery tickets (it's a scam).
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Playing the lottery or being a victim, one can only lose if one plays.

1180817-9.gif
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
You're more likely to be bitten by a shark, while being struck by lightning, than you are of being the victim of Islamic terrorism in America.

Just don't travel to the Middle East.

And don't buy lottery tickets (it's a scam).

Precisely why fear is overrated. Even in most of the Middle East, the real risk to any individual at any moment is very low. But I still don't travel to Mexico. It's all about perception of risk.
And of course they should take away all of our guns since they are obviously so very dangerous. For the kids.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I goofed - big time! Don't let it get you killed.

Please go back and read my edited Post #21.

Homemade explosives are explody - which is probably one of the reasons why the Paris bombers used them. An other is that you don't need to worry about bomb-sniffing dogs or machines until the last moment, when those will be too late anyhow.

About the only good thing I can see is that the amount of explosive is relatively small so it might require a lucky miss to detonate it.

stay safe.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
Flowers and candles to protect us. Wow

I was about the same age when a couple of home invasions happen in northern MN and Wis. I believe the BGs were escapees from some prison,

I remember my DAD getting his Colt officers model 38 and loading and placing it by his bed.

We all knew not to touch it. But we also knew Dad would defend us.

A bit different perspective then flowers and candles. Dad should have given him a white flag to wave also.

Heres a story about the officers model my Dad had.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/05/well-used-colt-officers-model-has-been.html
 

rscottie

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
608
Location
Ashland, Kentucky, USA
3,3-Dimethyl-1,2-dioxacyclopropane (monomer)
3,3,6,6-Tetramethyl-1,2,4,5-tetraoxane (dimer)
3,3,6,6,9,9-Hexamethyl-1,2,4,5,7,8-hexaoxacyclononane (trimer)
3,3,6,6,9,9,12,12-Octamethyl-1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11-octaoxacyclododecane (tetramer)

Well, that's one way to get on a "list"... ;)
 

omahaoutdoors

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2014
Messages
15
Location
Rosenberg TX
There is very little that can be done to PREVENT attacks like this. The best we can do is have a plan for after.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

That is the unfortunate truth. You can always be vigilant and carry in case you are someplace when an active shooting occurs, but there is not much you can do about explosives or other attacks beforehand. Just stay observant and do your best.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
That is the unfortunate truth. You can always be vigilant and carry in case you are someplace when an active shooting occurs, but there is not much you can do about explosives or other attacks beforehand. Just stay observant and do your best.

And I'm ok with that. The alternative is far worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
There is very little that can be done to PREVENT attacks like this. The best we can do is have a plan for after.

Rank nonsense Barbara Streisand. Deport deport deport incarcerate incarcerate incarcerate, execute execute execute. YOU may not like that security, traded for freedom, but it can be done.

Let me see if I can split the baby.

There is quite a bit that can and should be done to prevent attacks like this. That won't prevent them all, of course. But many can be prevented.

Proper police and terrorism work, and coordination among government officials is one key. I believe this can and should be done within constitutional bounds. And one point to consider is that acts of terrorism (especially when planned and committed by foreign nationals) looks a lot more like an act of war than it does an ugly case of knocking off the corner convenience store. Preparations, prevention, and response maybe should look more like something military than like common criminal court.

Nor is there a strict and hard dichotomy between security and freedom. Indeed, we would do well to go back to Franklin's original words: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This full quote suggests that there are appropriate trades to be made.

For example, we all give up a little personal freedom when we choose to lock our doors and cars. I know there are still places where folks don't lock their doors and they still leave their keys in their ignition when parking the car. I grew up in such a place. But very few of us live in those places today. So we give up a little bit of non-essential freedom in exchange for a fairly significant amount of on-going security. Similarly for our personal choices to carry firearms. There is a certain amount of comfort and convenience (one might call it "freedom") that is surrendered by carrying a gun, in exchange for the significant security benefits we derive from doing so.

In contrast, relatively few of us choose to walk around all day in body armor (even where doing so is legal), or to drive an armored car. The costs of doing so (whether financial, comfort, or otherwise) simply do not justify the marginal benefits we'd derive.

Obviously, these are voluntary decision and not imposed by the government, so the analogy (like all analogies) is not perfect. But I think they highlight the trade.

Proper border security, with the minimal inconvenience of needing to show a passport or otherwise demonstrate a right to enter the nation seems to me to be a very minimal loss of freedom in exchange for a whole lot of security benefits. Obviously, those who believe in completely open borders and the free movement of anyone not actually wearing the uniform of an enemy army will disagree. But I think most of us recognize the need for nations to control borders. Limiting who can enter the nation limits who is in a position to wear a suicide vest into crowded theater.

Some import inspections are necessary for enforcement of constitutionally authorized duties and tariffs anyway, and--if done properly--could increase the difficult of smuggling dirty bombs, biological agents, etc into the nation to use in an attack.

Proper security around critical infrastructure, with actual redundancy where possible, and interlocks to limit how far damage propagates, imposes almost zero loss of freedom (except perhaps slightly higher utility costs), but prevents rank amateurs from easily inflicting grave damage on entire cities or regions.

Local police sharing information with federal agencies (and vice versa) when they come upon something that might indicate plans for terroristic activity violates nobody's rights.

Collecting meta-data on phone calls or emails from/to parties outside the USA is more controversial, and I have my concerns. But I'm not aware of anyone actually being prosecuted for regular crimes based on data obtained without a warrant. Maybe I just missed it.

In any event, somewhere between zero security and a complete police state is probably a nice point where constitutional rights are respected, but we're not being stupid in terms of leaving the proverbial front door wide open as we and the family go to bed for the night. I don't presume to know exactly what that looks like, but I suspect it means greater personal freedom in certain areas (RKBA/OC for example) and a bit more diligence on the part of the government in other areas (secure borders, tracking when non-residents overstay their visas, better background checks on immigrants, etc) couple with some changes to sentencing such as shorter sentences and more rehabilitation for certain low level crimes and longer sentences for serious crimes.

Finally, foreign policy matters. We could probably do with less "meddling" overseas, but a stronger response when we do get involved. Small numbers of special forces or even CIA field types might be better at finding and eliminating terrorist leaders while also presenting far less of a target and far less of a sore spot for locals than would large occupying forces. Part of this is probably a lot less support for Saudi Arabia coupled with a lot more domestic energy development including oil, natural gas, hydro, nuclear fission, and significant investments in fusion, with "renewables" where they make economic sense.


Charles
 
Last edited:

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
Solomon's splitting-the-baby was an argumentum ad temperantiam, the informal fallacy of the goodness of compromise. You ain't Solomon or Solomonic. Compromise is failure on the installment plan. Barry Goldwater was even more eloquent in his rejection of moderation.

The other use of the metaphor is inappropriate for OCDO, as any curb crawling punter will know.

Agree. But compromise is NOT failure when the thing you give up is something that you never valued. Along the lines of "I will happily give up your right to jaywalk in order to preserve my right to drive without stopping every 20 feet. " The compromise being that I will agree to always stop at that corner so you can safely cross there any time. Just saying that there are reasonable things and unreasonable things, and then there is the slippery slope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Solomon's splitting-the-baby was an argumentum ad temperantiam, the informal fallacy of the goodness of compromise. You ain't Solomon or Solomonic. Compromise is failure on the installment plan. Barry Goldwater was even more eloquent in his rejection of moderation.

The other use of the metaphor is inappropriate for OCDO, as any curb crawling punter will know.

There is a difference between "compromise" and recognizing the fallacy of false dichotomy. I thought I had explained the false dichotomy between "security" and "freedom" with the full, original Franklin quote, and a couple of imperfect, but illustrative analogies.

Of course, it might be far more productive for you to simply state your preferred solution, if any, or even explaining exactly where you take issue with my views, rather than merely attacking a single turn-of-the-phrase on my part. Making a man an offender for a word is inappropriate in civil society.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Agree. But compromise is NOT failure when the thing you give up is something that you never valued. Along the lines of "I will happily give up your right to jaywalk in order to preserve my right to drive without stopping every 20 feet. " The compromise being that I will agree to always stop at that corner so you can safely cross there any time. Just saying that there are reasonable things and unreasonable things, and then there is the slippery slope.

+1 and thank you.

It is with good reason that slippery slope is also a logical fallacy. The risk of slippery needs to be guarded against, to be sure. But simply because something could be the first step toward something bad doesn't mean that step is bad. Were it not so, we'd have nowhere to go as the dangers anarchy would impose would prevent moving at all toward a more libertarian government, while the dangers of tyranny would prevent having any government at all. And there we would be stuck in perpetuity.

Charles
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
Give an inch and they take a mile.
Sometimes the extreme view is useful. For most things, more government rules and intrusion are not the best answer. And some things simply don't need a government solution or any organized solution at all.
For instance, most people think bad people shouldn't have gun readily accessible. But there is also the view that the problem is that we let bad people walk amongst us. Those on the other side of that issue would say that we don't need to keep guns away from anyone (legal possession by a felon would be just fine) because the rest of us would keep them in check.
Maybe there is a middle ground, a civil society agreement (that is, legislated rules and police to enforce and courts to uphold/validate/moderate) which imposes some "reasonable" limits. Maybe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Give an inch and they take a mile.
Sometimes the extreme view is useful. For most things, more government rules and intrusion are not the best answer. And some things simply don't need a government solution or any organized solution at all.
For instance, most people think bad people shouldn't have gun readily accessible. But there is also the view that the problem is that we let bad people walk amongst us. Those on the other side of that issue would say that we don't need to keep guns away from anyone (legal possession by a felon would be just fine) because the rest of us would keep them in check.
Maybe there is a middle ground, a civil society agreement (that is, legislated rules and police to enforce and courts to uphold/validate/moderate) which imposes some "reasonable" limits. Maybe.

Give an inch and they'll ask for a mile. Doesn't mean they get it. If an inch makes sense, so be it. Just be sure to stop there.

As for the guns issue, I take the simple view that any man allowed to walk the streets unsupervised must be afforded his rights, all of his rights. If he can't be trusted to exercise all of his rights, don't release him to walk the streets unsupervised.

This means we'd probably need some longer prison terms for certain crimes, and maybe some greater efforts to "rehabilitate". Whether that means some better training and psychobabble in prisons, or whether it means making prisons much less pleasant (a return to hard labor perhaps) such that folks really don't want to return, or some combination, I don't presume to know. I'm ok with some modest period of supervision and assistance to assimilate back into society, with restrictions on certain rights during that period. But I'm thinking no more than 1 to 3 years maximum. And upon successful completion of prison term and parole, all rights are restored. All of them. I'd go so far as to strictly limit which employers could even ask about a prior criminal record: financial positions, child or elderly care positions, etc. Pay your debt, then go forward without a lifetime of scarlet letter. Second offense, however, might become a lifetime sentence in such a system.

Back on topic, we must be eternally vigilant. But we must also be prudent. Government exists to protect rights, not to be a suicide pact. As you noted, we can readily come to terms about traffic laws to enable us to all drive far more safely and efficiently than we could in the absence of such rules. Proper government conduct can significantly reduce the risk from foreign invasion, domestic insurrection, terrorism, and common criminals to the protection of rights, without infringing on essential liberties.

Indeed, one might take an almost heretical view and look at Franklin's quote from the reverse direction. If real security can only be obtained through certain limited restrictions on individual conduct, what are the odds such conduct is really an essential liberty?

Clearly, jay-walking is not an essential liberty.

Is entering another's nation at will an essential liberty? Is that a natural right? Or do nation's properly have power to control their borders and who enters their territory?

Is avoiding jury duty a natural right or essential liberty? Or is compulsory jury service essential to providing any hope of justice in the courts?

Probably not a very good way to decide whether something is an essential liberty, but maybe some interesting food for thought for those willing to think rather than look for reasons to attack. I appreciate your willingness to think and discuss.

Thanks

Charles
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Solomon's splitting-the-baby was an argumentum ad temperantiam, the informal fallacy of the goodness of compromise. You ain't Solomon or Solomonic. Compromise is failure on the installment plan. Barry Goldwater was even more eloquent in his rejection of moderation.The other use of the metaphor is inappropriate for OCDO, as any curb crawling punter will know.
+1Notice the personal compromise of a personal action he then conflates with broad based government infringement.All liberty is essential and government safety is an illusion.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem." - No room for innocent bystanders here.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy
Odd, that doing nothing does not contribute to finding a solution and does not contribute to the problem...at the same time. Is it possible that being a innocent bystander is almost as "bad" as being part of the problem?

A innocent bystander is in fact enabling the problem...because you ain't trying to be apart of the solution.

So, being a innocent bystander, who carries a gun, is doing nothing?
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Agree. But compromise is NOT failure when the thing you give up is something that you never valued. Along the lines of "I will happily give up your right to jaywalk in order to preserve my right to drive without stopping every 20 feet. " The compromise being that I will agree to always stop at that corner so you can safely cross there any time. Just saying that there are reasonable things and unreasonable things, and then there is the slippery slope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When it comes to rights the idea that restricting them is "reasonable" depends on who is applying the criteria of "reasonable". Which means rights become subject to the opinion of whoever is considering what is "appropriately" "acceptably"... "reasonable".

I find the idea of someone else being willing to give up my rights... expressed using the example of jaywalking (where whether that is a right or not could be a whole 'nuther discussion) that one person doesn't value, regardless of if I value it or not, in order for that someone else to gain a convenience of not stopping every 20 feet that they do value.... very disturbing because it expresses the attitude that the rights of others are subject to compromise in order for someone else to gain something.

To put it into a right to keep and bear arms perspective:

Anti gunners are willing for other people give up the right to keep and bear arms, something the anti gunners do not value, through "reasonable" compromise in order for the anti gunner to gain a .. feeling ... of being safe that they do value.
 
Top