I’m focusing on immigration **BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP! **
Please provide a cite where I said immigrants are bad.
You claimed that a story about two immigrants, one of whom is still in the system HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION. Laughable on the face of it.
If you want to debate this further, open a thread on the subject. I’m done with this hijack.
So there is no connection between the bombers and immigration? I’m glad you disagree with him too
No, the pants stay off. Its cooler that way
I did not make immigration an issue. Republicans in Congress and on the airwaves brought up the connection. I said there was no such connection. Now if you are only focusing on immigration because I brought it up on this thread, then we can both end the discussion now by agreeing that immigration has absolutely, 100% nothing to do with the Boston bombings and that no immigration bill in Congress should be delayed or modified because of what happened last week
HOWEVER, if you want to claim I brought this up, and use that as a springboard to say that we should delay or modify the immigration bill, that “we haven’t had time to debate it”, or any such BS, then I’m going to call foul on that and tell you to prove that immigration has something do with this. And at the same time, I want you to tell me why Cambridge Rindge or Bunker Hill graduates are not being looked at for possible links, or Tamerlan’s boxing career, or anything else he’s ever done but seems to draw no suspicion from you. Its only immigration, huh? That’s the only thing that needs to be looked at? Personally, I think its because he’s a Caucasian, you know how wily those guys are
Why do you favor delaying or modifying the Congressional immigration bill due to the bombings? They’re unrelated, after all
Tell me again why you simply hand wave away the connection to Bunker Hill college?
I actually don’t want to debate this further as I see you have nothing at all substantive to contribute and any discussion trying to connect immigration to the Boston bombings would be a waste of time. There simply is no connection and no reason whatsoever to delay immigration reform in Congress because of it. Immigration has as much to do with the bombings as the fact that they went to Cambridge Rindge and were Caucasians.
You defended him by agreeing that his remarks should certainly be interpreted as saying the families political activism in the wake of their tragedy is inappropriate. You don’t like the word “inappropriate” but you did like the words, “It is largely a mistake”.
You posted this on April 18th.
And here is where you agreed with Rand Paul that these families actions are largely a mistake. Rand Paul said ‘it is’ he did not say it has been, historically, largely a mistake.
[QUOTE]
He’s right that actions in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy can be driven by emotion instead of reason, and produce outcomes that seem irrational in the light of subsequent cool reflection. -Human Action #022 04-18-2013 09:37 AM 108a0937
/QUOTE]
And for the record, Rand Paul was talking about the Newtown families political action when he said talking about the issues so close to a tragedy is largely a mistake.
These people want to talk and according to Rand Paul that is ‘largely a mistake’.
You cannot change what was said.
You asked:
Who’s interpretation of history must we accept? Yours? My sense of history and perception of gun regulation in this country is that the current laws are irrational and are being kept way to weak because of the irrational and senseless emotions of the gun rights lobby and because of paranoid and crazy libertarian driven hysteria that has no willingness to compromise on anything.
And the gun manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank. Hysteria sells.
I liked them so much I never used them myself…
“Inappropriate” is the word you chose. There’s nothing inappropriate about what the families are doing.
You can declare that I do think they’re acting inappropriately, but that’s not a debate, it’s a puppet show.
That’s what “it is largely a mistake” means. If he meant this specific instance of political action, he wouldn’t say “largely”, which indicates he’s referring to multiple instances. He’s saying the same thing I said, in his clumsy, Rand Paul way: let’s not be hasty and pass laws purely because we’re all fired up at the moment.
He’s not specifically referring to the Newtown families; that’s something he brings up later in his remarks. He’s talking about the gun debate itself.
[QUOTE=Human Action]
He’s right that actions in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy can be driven by emotion instead of reason, and produce outcomes that seem irrational in the light of subsequent cool reflection.
[/QUOTE]
What I wrote is true. I even gave examples.
Again, unless you think that there can be no such thing as a bad gun law, it’s plainly obvious that a bad gun law can be passed. One possible cause would be a cause that’s led to bad laws & other government action in the past: emotionally-charged, tragic events.
See above; no he wasn’t. You are combining two different statements, neither of which are damning or even inflammatory on their own, into a chimera that still isn’t inflammatory, though you seem to dearly wish it were.
Remember that we’re talking about some extemporaneous remarks at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast.
You know what, since I have too much time on my hands, I’ll transcribe the remarks at the breakfast, taken from this video
Context is essential, isn’t it? Clearly Paul is fine with a debate on gun control, he never criticizes the families, he even bases his approach on what happened specifically at Newtown, he just doesn’t think any of the current proposals are good ideas.
I don’t need to, it’s all quite sensible. It’s when you read nonsense into it like this:
…seemingly based on what you think gun-rights supporters must think, rather than anything I’ve said, that we have a problem.
Ok, are you saying that that’s never happened? Forget gun law, are you saying that what I described has never happened?
Bully for you. Blaming the libertarians is rich, though, if you think they are behind the gun-rights movement or driving hysteria you’re pretty disconnected from reality.
This is from a Libertarian Website:
Dear Fellow Patriot,
House Speaker John Boehner is unashamedly discussing moving a gun control bill of his own.
And he’s saying he will “consider” anti-gun legislation that Harry Reid rams through the Senate.
Thats why it’s vital gun owners crank up the heat on members of the U.S. House to OPPOSE gun control.
Sign your No Gun Control, No Deals petition to your Congressman below RIGHT NOW!
It’s a self-styled Conservative Libertarian blog, with a tagline of Molan Labe. How would you think they’d come down on gun control?
This is from a Socialist Website:
Iraq, Afghanistan Wars Will Cost U.S. 4-6 Trillion Dollars: Report
Source: IPS
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Mar 30 2013 (IPS) - Costs to U.S. taxpayers of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will run between four and six trillion dollars, making them the most expensive conflicts in U.S. history, according to a new report by a prominent Harvard University researcher.
http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2013/03/30/astronomical-costs-iraq-afghan
Clearly, opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is driven by socialists.
I don’t know how many libertarians you think there are in this country, but I’ll be the first to admit, we aren’t driving much of anything at the national policy level. We’re drastically outnumbered by conservatives and progressives.
Ugh… I did not want to continue this, but since you insist on disparaging my character…
Cite that I favor delaying an immigration bill?
Show us your rgument that, even if I did, this proves that I think immigrants are bad?
Once again I am compelled to remind a poster of the first rule of holes. You have some odd belief that if I don’t agree with you 100% that I am against you, 100%. George W. Bush had the same problem-- if you’re not with us, you’re against us.
You made a sweeping assertion that this had “nothing” to do with immigration. I called you on that. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s OK to admit you were wrong. People will actually think better of you.
The NRA’s fabricated but escalating view of the Second Amendment was ridiculed by former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger—a conservative appointed by President Richard Nixon—in a PBS Newshour interview in 1991, where he called it “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Rand Paul’s daddy opposes the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on Libertarian principles and he is hardly a Socialist.
It is the Second Amendment hysteria and fear mongering that I have eluded to which converted the NRA in the Seventies from a gun safety and Markmanship Organization to its current polical arm for the right wing cause of protecting gun rights. Prior to the libertarian Second Amendment obsessed take-over of the NRA the NRA was in favor of Gun Laws and registration.
Here’s what Warren Burger said about the libertarian Second Amendment obsession:
I consider the bloodshed that will result from attempting to confiscate guns from the 70 to 150 million Americans who currently own them to be a negative outcome. I consider the idea that any death, tragedy, or person crying in Congress gives Barack Obama or any other President the right to ignore clear Supreme Court rulings, on the Second Amendment granting an individual right under the Constitution or any other issue, to be a negative outcome. I consider the abandonment of proven crime reduction strategies that have made the U.S. a massively safer place to live over the last 40 years in favor of magical thinking about gun confiscation that will lead to a return to 1980s-level murder rates to be a negative outcome for the people who will be murdered and for everyone. Do you consider these things positives?
If you want to attack the NRA, that sounds like material for a new thread, since it has nothing to do with Rand Paul’s comments.
By your logic, if socialists oppose the war, they must be driving the opposition. Or, you’re just wrong that libertarians drive the gun-rights movement. There are somewhere around 150 million American gun owners. How many do you think are libertarians? Hint: Being pro-gun-rights doesn’t make you a libertarian. Different political groups can share some of the same ideas. For example, isolationists and socialists are both anti-Iraq War. Libertarians and Democrats are both pro-choice. Socialists and Democrats are both pro-organized labor. Paleoconservatives and socialists are both anti-corporatist. And on and on.
Yes, in 1977 the NRA underwent an internal shift and emerged as a political organization. This has what, again, to do with libertarians?
And if that editorial is where you get your ideas about libertarians, it’s no wonder you hate and fear them. It calls Antonin Scalia a libertarian, for Pete’s sake!
Burger never mentions libertarians.
ETA: Put it this way: I would looooove for libertarians to be as powerful as you imagine us to be, dictating national policy from on high. But we simply aren’t.
So you must be one of the gun rights hysteria propagandists that 150 million Americans are going to have their guns confiscated if any law is passed to regulate firearms in any way.
Are you a libertarian?
No one is proposing taking your guns away?
Unless of course it is a machine gun in violation of the 1934 Machine Gun Ban, of course.
How much money are you willing to stake on the proposition that “no one” (on this board? in Congress? anywhere?) is proposing the confiscation of guns?
No such thing. The National Firearms Act didn’t ban machine guns, it just created a regulatory framework for their sale and transfer and such (among other types of firearms, such as short-barreled rifles). I’ve fire legally-owned, civilian machine guns. Heck, the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot was a few hours from my house a couple weeks ago (and a great ol’ time).
You wrote ‘…attempting to confiscate guns from the 70 to 150 million Americans who currently own them’. Name one member of the US Congress who proposed such a thing.
Sounds like confiscating ‘all’ guns to me or one hell of a lotta guns.
Do you have a response that is either in English or relevant to what I wrote? I’d settle for one or the other, at this point.
This is plain English. Provide some backup.
You wrote ‘…attempting to confiscate guns from the 70 to 150 million Americans who currently own them’. Name one member of the US Congress who proposed such a thing.
I suppose libertarians have nothing to do with this:
And these ready to rebel through armed insurrection Americans are not driven by emotion, but Sandy Hook victims’ parents are all driven by emotion.