At 1/19/13 04:16 PM, Feoric wrote: Huh, very interesting. So, if Obama doesn'tban All Da Guns he doesn't care about dead children, but if he does ban All Da Guns, then he's a fusion of Mussolini's and Hitler's ghosts wrapped up unto one convenient package. What a catch 22!

I'm saying if he had conviction, he would do what he thinks needs to be done. Instead of giving way to his critics. Get it?

At 1/19/13 02:09 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: How?

Passing laws requiring citizens to buy shit from people he dictates seems pretty Mussolini to me.

At 1/19/13 07:53 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I'm saying if he had conviction, he would do what he thinks needs to be done. Instead of giving way to his critics. Get it?

So his Executive Actions and calls to Congress, in your opinion, don't reflect his conviction and he isn't doing what he thinks needs to be done, and every proposal and EO is just giving way to critics? Is that what you're saying?

At 1/19/13 07:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/19/13 04:22 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Well lets be honest about it. There would be less fatalities and more wounded if "Assault Weapons" were the only things ever used in mass shootings.

You make many assumptions in that statement.

IF you bothered looking at statistics and knew about bullets and firearm design you'd know that an "assault weapon" was never designed to make death inevitable. But the use of HP rounds most certainly does, and those are used in pistols.

At 1/19/13 07:54 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/19/13 02:09 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: How?

Passing laws requiring citizens to buy shit from people he dictates seems pretty Mussolini to me.

Without Obamacare tens of thousands would die annually due to the very lack of healthcare. Seems like a pretty smart idea to stop as many of those deaths as possible.

This guy would kick the shit out of President Obama in a debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2DRlIB6r2U

At 1/19/13 10:24 PM, Feoric wrote: So his Executive Actions and calls to Congress, in your opinion, don't reflect his conviction and he isn't doing what he thinks needs to be done, and every proposal and EO is just giving way to critics? Is that what you're saying?

Absolutely. He's doing just enough so idiots say "See? He's a good guy". Much like he did with, say, gay marriage.

At 1/19/13 11:38 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Without Obamacare tens of thousands would die annually due to the very lack of healthcare. Seems like a pretty smart idea to stop as many of those deaths as possible.

Tens of thousands will die annually no matter what. You cannot stop people from dying.

As it stands now, pre-Obamacare, people are not just keeling over because they don't have insurance.

At 1/20/13 02:40 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Tens of thousands will die annually no matter what. You cannot stop people from dying.

As it stands now, pre-Obamacare, people are not just keeling over because they don't have insurance.

Also, you seem to forget this thing called...CHOICE. You know, where you choose to buy insurance based on risk of injury or death. Forcing people to pay his buddies is definitely not the answer, especially when most uninsured people (people who can't afford it in the first place), will now have another bill to pay.

Obamacare will drive up costs of insurance, because only (currently) premium plans will be available, because Obama says the other ones don't cover enough). So, it's more likely that people will be dying of starvation, because they are now required to should another astronomical bill

At 1/20/13 02:37 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Absolutely. He's doing just enough so idiots say "See? He's a good guy". Much like he did with, say, gay marriage.

Can you tell me what he did and what he should have done instead?

At 1/20/13 06:35 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 1/20/13 02:37 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Absolutely. He's doing just enough so idiots say "See? He's a good guy". Much like he did with, say, gay marriage.

Can you tell me what he did and what he should have done instead?

He said "I support gays," when it was financially/politically convenient for him, and repealed Dont Ask Dont Tell.

What he should have done is proposed legislation to bring equal marriage rights to gays.

At 1/20/13 07:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: He said "I support gays," when it was financially/politically convenient for him, and repealed Dont Ask Dont Tell.

What he should have done is proposed legislation to bring equal marriage rights to gays.

I should have been more clear. I meant in the context of gun legislation, not gay marriage.

At 1/20/13 08:45 PM, Feoric wrote:

What he should have done is proposed legislation to bring equal marriage rights to gays.

I should have been more clear. I meant in the context of gun legislation, not gay marriage.

I think, he should focus on fixing availability of guns, to people of unstable minds. Or better yet, try to figure out why there are so many crazy kids out there killing people. The issue is not guns themselves. In nations where gun control is loose, there is no gun violence. Hell, even in the US, we did not have mass shootings until fairly recently. It's a problem with people, and if I was a betting man, I'd say it has to do with the food/water or over-medication of Americans...point is, there is something bigger that needs to be looked at, and banning guns based on their looks, is not the answer.

He's done nothing that will help the issue. He issued some BS EO's about gun education and a "Stricter enforcemnt" of stuff that's already in place.

Let's assume for a moment, that availability of guns is the issue. Don't you think we should be banning "dangerous" guns, based on...caliber, or rate of fire, or something, instead of how they look?

At 1/20/13 09:40 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I think, he should focus on fixing availability of guns, to people of unstable minds. Or better yet, try to figure out why there are so many crazy kids out there killing people.

Have you had a look at what his plan is? He has multiple Executive Orders that address just that. In fact, most them in one way shape or form address this:

- Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

- Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

- Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

- Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

What do you think he is focused on instead? To me, it seems pretty clear that his main goal isn't a door-to-door search of homes to confiscate guns, but is instead focusing on tying up loose ends within the laws which are currently on the books while encouraging a dialogue about mental health. It actually sounds pretty good to me, and I have to be honest, I'm pleasantly surprised.

Now, we can absolutely have a discussion about how effective those measures may be, how those measures would be implemented, and even other ideas which may be more effective at trying to solve the problems you mentioned. But you can't claim that this isn't part of his focus, because the bulk of the items he proposed directly or tangentially address the problems you stated.

The issue is not guns themselves. In nations where gun control is loose, there is no gun violence.

Honestly, I have no idea! I've seen studies that support this, and I've seen studies that don't. I think the issue is way too complex for us to understand completely, and we haven't really figured out a way to get strong conclusive data. It's an extraordinarily complex issue which involves tons of other complex issues in and of themselves like culture, poverty, healthcare and psychology just to name a few.

I mean, I could sit here all day and shit out studies that have different methodologies which would back any opinion I have about the root causes of gun violence, but you could do the same as well. That doesn't really get us anywhere. But you're right, the issue is not guns themselves. Nor is the issue not-not being guns, either. The issue is realizing that there is no one issue. It's not going to be 100% this or 100% that.

Hell, even in the US, we did not have mass shootings until fairly recently.

That's not really true. From looking at the list it seems things started to happen more often during the 90s, but I have no idea what happened in 2012. Stress? The economy? Media coverage?

It's a problem with people, and if I was a betting man, I'd say it has to do with the food/water or over-medication of Americans

What food, what water, and what medication? Because if you're talking about fluoridated water, well, we've been doing that for 65 some-odd years now. How do you explain the delay? The food? Well, sure, we're a pretty unhealthy country. But TV dinners and fast food have been around since the 50s. Again, why now? Medication? Interesting, and the most likely out of the things you mentioned here, but don't you think that's putting the cart before the horse? Is it that SSRIs make people more likely to shoot up innocent people, or is it that people who are more likely to shoot up innocent people are more likely to be on SSRIs? That's something you'd have to demonstrate.

Let's assume for a moment, that availability of guns is the issue. Don't you think we should be banning "dangerous" guns, based on...caliber, or rate of fire, or something, instead of how they look?

Sure! However, no matter what, I ultimately believe that guns bans will always be an arbitrary endeavor. But how would you feel if that actually came to fruition? Would you value your right to bear arms more heavily than stopping gun related crime?

At 1/20/13 11:39 PM, Feoric wrote: - Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

And what is defined as "relevant data"? Anything specific he has in mind, or did he keep it vague so it can change..I mean "evolve" down the road.

- Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

The attorney general who says it's okay to sell guns to Mexican druglords, and protects militant Black Panthers in front of polling places? Yeah, I trust him to handle it.

- Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Fair enough

- Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Right. We all know how well "national dialouges" accomplish things

What do you think he is focused on instead? To me, it seems pretty clear that his main goal isn't a door-to-door search of homes to confiscate guns, but is instead focusing on tying up loose ends within the laws which are currently on the books while encouraging a dialogue about mental health. It actually sounds pretty good to me, and I have to be honest, I'm pleasantly surprised.

Obviously he isn't proposing confiscation tomorrow. But historically, it's this type of proposed legislation (weapon bans), that paves the way for confiscation

Now, we can absolutely have a discussion about how effective those measures may be, how those measures would be implemented, and even other ideas which may be more effective at trying to solve the problems you mentioned. But you can't claim that this isn't part of his focus, because the bulk of the items he proposed directly or tangentially address the problems you stated.

Again, banning guns based on looks is not the answer, and that idea shouldn't even be floating around in his stupid head.

Honestly, I have no idea! I've seen studies that support this, and I've seen studies that don't. I think the issue is way too complex for us to understand completely, and we haven't really figured out a way to get strong conclusive data. It's an extraordinarily complex issue which involves tons of other complex issues in and of themselves like culture, poverty, healthcare and psychology just to name a few.

Absolutely. And just saying "oh, banning adjustable stocks will solve this" has nothing to do with any of that.

I mean, I could sit here all day and shit out studies that have different methodologies which would back any opinion I have about the root causes of gun violence, but you could do the same as well. That doesn't really get us anywhere. But you're right, the issue is not guns themselves. Nor is the issue not-not being guns, either. The issue is realizing that there is no one issue. It's not going to be 100% this or 100% that.

And just like in most cases and issues, Obama wants to push through the band-aid quick solution. This problem is much deeper than a knee jerk reaction you come up with in a couple weeks or months. As is healthcare, as is war. Obama lacks foresight. He instantly jumps to the quickest, most convenient (for him) solution, instead of actually looking at deeper answers.

That's not really true. From looking at the list it seems things started to happen more often during the 90s, but I have no idea what happened in 2012. Stress? The economy? Media coverage?

1990's is what I meant. There were no mass shootings in 1960 was there? It's a recent problem in the last 20 years or so. Which happens to coincide with the era of over-medication, and fucking with the food and water.

What food, what water, and what medication? Because if you're talking about fluoridated water, well, we've been doing that for 65 some-odd years now. How do you explain the delay? The food? Well, sure, we're a pretty unhealthy country. But TV dinners and fast food have been around since the 50s. Again, why now? Medication? Interesting, and the most likely out of the things you mentioned here, but don't you think that's putting the cart before the horse? Is it that SSRIs make people more likely to shoot up innocent people, or is it that people who are more likely to shoot up innocent people are more likely to be on SSRIs? That's something you'd have to demonstrate.

Well, the food is filled with chemicals, hormones and genetically altered. There's lead, and yes, fluoride in the water, along god knows what else. Nearly everyone in this nation is on something. The US consumes 90% of the world prescription drugs. Doctors are glorified pill salesman. Kids are being prescribed medications constantly.

Sure! However, no matter what, I ultimately believe that guns bans will always be an arbitrary endeavor. But how would you feel if that actually came to fruition? Would you value your right to bear arms more heavily than stopping gun related crime?

I value OTHER'S right to bear arms. If they exercise that right, gun violence against them would be a non issue

At 1/21/13 02:11 AM, LemonCrush wrote: And what is defined as "relevant data"? Anything specific he has in mind, or did he keep it vague so it can change..I mean "evolve" down the road.

Good question! I don't know the specifics about every item, but I feel safe in assuming that the relevant data is specifically in the context of the NICS. Wikipedia gives a rundown of the criteria which is used to define whether a person is prohibited from shipping/receiving/possessing firearms.

The attorney general who says it's okay to sell guns to Mexican druglords, and protects militant Black Panthers in front of polling places? Yeah, I trust him to handle it.

F&F was certainly a black eye to the Holder and the administration, but wow, Black Panther-gate again? This was that voter intimidation case in Philadelphia circa 2008, right? I thought this was settled by now. The case was downgraded to a civil case during the Bush administration, 26 days before Eric Holder became AG. The decision not to pursue criminal charges against these "militant Black Panthers" wasn't made by Obama's admin. There's also the fact that literally zero voters filed a complaint or claimed that they were intimidated, which is integral for perusing a voter intimidation case to start with (but maybe that's because they were intimidated!!) and that Abigail Thernstrom, then Republican chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights went on record saying that the whole ordeal was "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges." Then there's also the issue of the whistleblower who made the story to begin with. I'll just leave it at that. There's literally nothing there, just a now obscure media fury that lasted two weeks years ago. If you have a bone to pick with Holder over F&F, fine! You know what? I do too. But this Black Panther story is a complete non issue.

Right. We all know how well "national dialouges" accomplish things

I understand the skepticism, but the plan doesn't seem overtly political in nature, so it actually might serve some good depending on it's execution. This is from a PDF the White House released a few days ago:

"Launch a national conversation to increase understanding about mental health: The sense of shame and secrecy associated with mental illness prevents too many people from seeking help. The President is directing Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan to launch a national dialogue about mental illness with young people who have experienced mental illness, members of the faith community, foundations, and school and business leaders."

Obviously he isn't proposing confiscation tomorrow. But historically, it's this type of proposed legislation (weapon bans), that paves the way for confiscation

As long as the 2nd amendment is there there is absolutely no way no how any possibility of any sort of federal level confiscation or mandatory buyback program being implemented, especially during Obama's admin. Heller was in 2008, there is no precedent of the Supreme Court overturning old rulings in such a short period of time. Your right to bear arms is here to stay for a very long period of time. If I'm unable to quell your anxiety about that, then I'm sorry I can't help you.

Again, banning guns based on looks is not the answer, and that idea shouldn't even be floating around in his stupid head.

The idea of Congress renewing the AWB only exists as a bargaining chip for future negotiations as I explained in my post in the other thread.

Absolutely. And just saying "oh, banning adjustable stocks will solve this" has nothing to do with any of that.

Fortunately this isn't a key component of what Obama wants to implement, which I was scared to death of happening.

1990's is what I meant. There were no mass shootings in 1960 was there?

That depends on how you define "mass shooting" (wikipedia tells me 4 during the 60s) but there were absolutely shootings in schools in the 60s, for example. The most famous one was the University of Texas massacre, which left 14 people dead. It's interesting to note how many of these perpetrators committed suicide, and how many of then surrendered or were subdued. It tells me that not everybody who does this kind of stuff goes into doing it with the same mind set.

It's a recent problem in the last 20 years or so. Which happens to coincide with the era of over-medication, and fucking with the food and water.

The food and water was already "fucked" with way before 20 years ago (which would be 1992), so I really doubt that this has anything to do with it unless you can find any medical studies that looked into this.

Well, the food is filled with chemicals, hormones and genetically altered. There's lead, and yes, fluoride in the water, along god knows what else. Nearly everyone in this nation is on something. The US consumes 90% of the world prescription drugs. Doctors are glorified pill salesman. Kids are being prescribed medications constantly.

Well, I dunno, when you have jackasses like Alex Jones going on national television calling anti-depressants "suicide pills" it seems kinda detrimental to the cause of improving the state of mental healthcare in this country, doesn't it? It's definitely true that SSRIs like Prozac can cause suicidal tendencies, and that some school shooters were on SSRIs at the time they committed the attack, but, like I hear from the pro-gun side all the time, "correlation does not equal causation." It seems kinda wonky to tackle the issue of mass shooters through the perspective of fluoridated water, but if there's any scientific literature on the subject that makes a connecting between fluoridation and mental illness, I'll be happy to read it.

I value OTHER'S right to bear arms. If they exercise that right, gun violence against them would be a non issue

But we're talking in a hypothetical scenario where all the evidence in the world concluded that the availability of guns was the root cause of the gun problem in this country, and the only way to solve it was through a gun ban. Would you support a federal gun ban to solve the issue? What about the 2nd amendment?

At 1/21/13 05:25 AM, Feoric wrote: Good question! I don't know the specifics about every item, but I feel safe in assuming that the relevant data is specifically in the context of the NICS. Wikipedia gives a rundown of the criteria which is used to define whether a person is prohibited from shipping/receiving/possessing firearms.

That's fine, but "relevant data" is pretty vague.

If you have a bone to pick with Holder over F&F, fine! You know what? I do too. But this Black Panther story is a complete non issue.

Bullcrap. If there were KKK members in front of polling paces trying to intimidate voters, they would be in prison right now.

"Launch a national conversation to increase understanding about mental health: The sense of shame and secrecy associated with mental illness prevents too many people from seeking help. The President is directing Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan to launch a national dialogue about mental illness with young people who have experienced mental illness, members of the faith community, foundations, and school and business leaders."

That's great. So this is gonna lead to stupid PSA's and shit on TV 24/7, I can see it already. Just like Michelle Obama and her fat kids cause or Nancy Reagan and her Just Say No cause. They're going to spend money for TV ads, and not actually solve the problem. It's a face-saving measure. What we need is actual neurologists and doctors doing studies on this crap, not "launching a dialogue" of talking to people.

As long as the 2nd amendment is there there is absolutely no way no how any possibility of any sort of federal level confiscation or mandatory buyback program being implemented, especially during Obama's admin.

Well, there is no nation who just does it overnight. As for the bill of rights...that doesn't mean shit anymore. As far as Obama goes, we've had a guy thrown in jail without trial for making an anti-muslim video, we have people in gitmo with no trial, we have the patriot act, and most recently, we just passed a federal law that requires states to participate in a money grabbing scheme.

The idea of Congress renewing the AWB only exists as a bargaining chip for future negotiations as I explained in my post in the other thread.

We don't need to be playing a game of "bargaining chips"

Fortunately this isn't a key component of what Obama wants to implement, which I was scared to death of happening.

That's what the assault weapons ban is.

That depends on how you define "mass shooting" (wikipedia tells me 4 during the 60s) but there were absolutely shootings in schools in the 60s, for example.

Fair enough. Notice the guns used were not what the government defines as "assault weapons". Hell, one of the was a 22 pistol. Which under the proposed ban, will not be touched. Nor will 12 gauge shotguns (another gun used). The type of gun, is not the problem...fully automatic, military style weapons are already banned.

The food and water was already "fucked" with way before 20 years ago (which would be 1992), so I really doubt that this has anything to do with it unless you can find any medical studies that looked into this.

Yes, I know..I didn't mean LITERALLY 20 years ago...

Well, I dunno, when you have jackasses like Alex Jones going on national television calling anti-depressants "suicide pills" it seems kinda detrimental to the cause of improving the state of mental healthcare in this country, doesn't it? It's definitely true that SSRIs like Prozac can cause suicidal tendencies, and that some school shooters were on SSRIs at the time they committed the attack, but, like I hear from the pro-gun side all the time, "correlation does not equal causation." It seems kinda wonky to tackle the issue of mass shooters through the perspective of fluoridated water, but if there's any scientific literature on the subject that makes a connecting between fluoridation and mental illness, I'll be happy to read it.

Alex Jones is not a doctor, his opinion on the matter should not even be in the discussion.

My point was, where's medications in water run off, the food is filled with hormones, and even genetically modified...and they don't even know the risks of genetic modification yet! Other nations do not seem to have the violence issues we do. I'm just saying, the food and water should be something we look at.

But we're talking in a hypothetical scenario where all the evidence in the world concluded that the availability of guns was the root cause of the gun problem in this country, and the only way to solve it was through a gun ban. Would you support a federal gun ban to solve the issue? What about the 2nd amendment?

If that was the case, I'd still support the second amendment.

At 1/19/13 01:55 PM, Fim wrote:

At 1/18/13 10:41 PM, TheMason wrote:

That's almost like saying because I've never been to Palestine or Jerusalem I can't have an opinion on the middle east, as
long as I understand the facts my opinion is as valid as yours, and I have actually shot a rifle and a pistol before although that was a few years ago.

Actually, it is nothing like that. My point is: do you really understand the facts?

Also, shooting a firearm once or twice gives you more basis than the person who has never fired a gun...it does not mean that you understand the facts. Also, please know that while I may be blunt...I do not mean to be rude. I am merely pointing out that just by following the news and having an idea of what guns are (formed through media and pop culture) may not be the most firm foundation upon which to form an opinion. After all, my ex-wife is a Doctor and I've removed my own stitches before...that does not mean my opinion on medicine is as valid as hers.

So the question is, in order to understand the facts do you know:
* Where on the spectrum of power as it relates to velocity and foot pounds on target...an 'assault rifle' falls on the spectrum relative to pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles? (This means what rounds, and what guns are designed to shoot those rounds, cause 'maximum damage'?)
* Which firearms are used in crime...and which are not?
* The trend of crime, especially gun crime, in the US...is it going up or is it going down?
* What do the academic journals say about the causes of all crime...including gun crime?
* What do the academic journals say about the causes of mass shooters/killers?

I can only assume that my point regarding New Zealand and their gun control scheme is pretty water tight because nobody here has even tried to rebuttle it.

Not water tight at all.

* Assault rifles are not used in crime because they are not effective for criminal purposes. Furthermore, they are not the lethal killing machines you see in the media.
* Comparing the crime rates between countries is problematic. The root causes of gun crime is NOT guns nor their availability. Root causes are economic in nature (access to education, economic opportunity for all demographics, presence/non-presence of ethnic minorities treated as permanent second class citizens). These problems are unique to each country and is what explains differences in crime rates...not guns.
* The geography is different. NZ is an island whereas the US shares a long and very porous border with a country riddled with criminal cartels that make billions if not trillions off of smuggling drugs and people into the US. They would make even more money smuggling illegal firearms into the US to fill demand of gangs.

The New Zealand law wouldn't effect US crime rates at all.

For example...why have different classifications for different guns? And if you're going to...would military style semi-autos be the ones you want to be the most or least restrictive on?

Yep, I think owning semi-autos should have tighter restrictions than less powerful weapons. I think a similar scheme to what they have in New Zealand where they grade weapons on a scale of severity would be ideal.

Then semi-auto 'assault rifles' would be the least restrictive.

1) They are not 'powerful weapons'. By definition an assault rifle shoots a round that is intermediate between a pistol and a hunting rifle. Furthermore, military ammo is far less destructive to flesh than hunting ammo, self-defense ammo for pistols, and most shotgun ammo.

2) Higher rates of fire means far, far less accuracy since muzzle rise and recoil makes you shoot into the ceiling.

3) Assault rifles are heavier and more cumbersome than pistols and sawed-off shotguns. That is why pistols are used in 75-85% of gun crime and shotguns in 12-18%. ALL rifles make up the remaining 2-5%, with assault rifles used (most years) <1% of the time. They cannot be concealed. Their length makes them unwieldy in any situation inside a building. They are much heavier. And they tend to leave behind witnesses because they are not all that good at killing. A jacketed hollow point that weighs as much as a pistol bullet going at subsonic speeds (or buckshot and/or a slug in the case of shotguns) is far, far, far more likely to kill than even a hollow point fired from an AR-15.

====

In the end, your suggestions seem to fit within those commonly found by people who are largely ignorant of the realities of what guns are, what they are capable of, how they are used in crime, and what the real causes of crime are.

I do not think what you suggest is unreasonable. In fact they are logical. However, once you understand things such as ballistics and trends in crime this reason, rationality, and logic begins to dissapate as you move from ignorance to knowledge. And you see that these suggestions are impractical and counter-productive in that they divert resources away from addressing real problems...that will save lives.

At 1/19/13 01:55 PM, Fim wrote: Sorry but that's you're opinion. If you're going to make claims like that, then back them up with real evidence.

As I said, Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher. If you are in a sticky situation with a criminal (which is still a very unlikely scenario) you don't play rambo, you give them what they want, and then you claim everything you lose back on your insurance. And you entrust the police to deal with them effectively. Getting involved yourself is needlessly dangerous.

How about this:

* The Branas study has some flawed methodology in that it only deals with shootings. The vast majority of defensive gun use never involves a single shot fired. I for one have had to use a firearm twice in self-defense. The first time, the cops refused to come because they were busy. It wasn't until my ex-wife called back saying the guy was still there doing crazy shit to get into the house...and that I was armed that the police came. Had I not been armed...the cops would not have come until the guy was inside my home with myself and my ex-wife who was four months pregnant at the time. The next time the person was actually in the house and fled when they realized I was armed.

By not taking defensive uses of guns into the picture where shots are not fired (>95% of civilian firearm usage) and focusing on 1% of defensive uses of guns Branas is not following good social science methodological practices. By excluding these uses of guns he grossly overinflates his numbers. And he's flat out wrong.

* RAMBO: I totally agree that you do not play Rambo. In the cases where I have used a gun in self-defense they were home invasion scenarios. I retreated to the bedroom, locked the door and called 911. In this way I was in control of the sitiuation since I could take cover. I knew where the intruder was coming from and therefore covered the door ready to fire if he decided to break in. However, he did not know where in the room I or my wife was...or what cover we had. Therefore, if he intended harm...I could quickly take him out of the picture.

Secondly, if he only intended to take my TV or rob me (and not do me physical harm)...I had the chance to warn him that I had a gun. If it is only a robbery in 99% of cases he will flee the house. See, I do not want to shoot anyone...it would be a horrible burden for the rest of my life. And I don't want that. Furthermore, this is what most self-defense experts (and the NRA) teach people to do.

Now if I was out and about on the street it would depend on the situation. When you get your concealed carry permit you are taught not to draw if the bad guy has already drawn on you. If they have a knife or are attacking you melee and are within 21 feet of you...do not draw. In those cases you do not have the time to get off a shot before you are shot, stabbed, or bludgeoned and your gun taken away from you. In those cases it is best to comply.

* Overall, numerous studies by criminologists such as Dr. Gary Kleck, have shown that guns do defuse these situations. Furthermore, many of these studies like Branas' have been shown to be methodologically lacking. For example, they also tend to include suicides which have been shown that those deaths would occur with or without a gun because the gun is not the root cause of the death and substitution effects come into play.

====

In the end, yes it is my opinion. But it is an opinion formed by formal training in social science methodology. Experience with guns. And having spent the majority of my adult life immersed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

At 1/19/13 01:55 PM, Fim wrote: Yep, I think owning semi-autos should have tighter restrictions than less powerful weapons. I think a similar scheme to what they have in New Zealand where they grade weapons on a scale of severity would be ideal.

In terms of power, I thought I'd provide you with a picture. From left to right according to category:
Pistol Rounds
9mm (common police and military pistol round)
.45 ACP (1911 series pistols)
.38 (used recently in Georgia)
.44 Rem Mag (pistol round useful for deer hunting)

Assault Rifle Rounds
7.62x39 (AK-47)
.223 or 5.56mm (M-16, NATO assault rifles...note the .22LR shell in front of it; the bullet of the M-16 is only .003 of an inch larger.)

Hunting Rifle Round
.270 winchester

Now which bullet is the high power one? The one used for deer hunting (.270) or one of the assault rifle rounds?

Also, which ones will kill you faster? If you look at the shape of the bullet (projectile) of the assault rifle rounds they are pointed (even though the AK round is a hollow point). This means that, especially with the AR-15/M-16 round, the bullet is cased in a metal shell that makes expansion/deformation less likely. This means that since the bullet is traveling at a high velocity...it is going to over penetrate and not cause much damage.

But look at the pistol rounds. They have three things going for them: weight, shape and slow speed. These three things combined mean three things for the person hit with them:
A) A slower, heavier round will transfer more energy to the victim causing more bludgeoning damage.
B) The shape will slow the bullet's momentum meaning it is more likely to stay inside the body...and more likely to tumble tearing up internal organs.
C) The above factors give hollow points (HP) and jacketed hollow points (JHP) more of a chance to expand creating more bludgeoning damage and adding (in the case of JHP) shredding damage.

Finally, hunting ammo has the same effect of the pistol ammo...only effective at a longer range. The make-up of a soft-core round (pictured) or a HP or JHP will allow it to transfer more energy to a body and have a greater chance of expansion. Now, they do make hunting ammo for the AR-15 and the AK-47. However, in the case of the AR-15 many states make it illegal to hunt with this round because of how ineffective it is at killing. The AK deer round is a great hunting round for short ranges and wooded areas. It actually makes hunting safer because it will travel less distance if you miss. However, the rounds are scarce and expensive at $1/rd (at least) compared to the $0.27 I paid for the round pictured.

Now do you still think assault rifles are extraordinarily lethal killing machines that Obama claimed?
C)

At 1/21/13 05:25 AM, Feoric wrote: That depends on how you define "mass shooting" (wikipedia tells me 4 during the 60s) but there were absolutely shootings in schools in the 60s, for example. The most famous one was the University of Texas massacre, which left 14 people dead. It's interesting to note how many of these perpetrators committed suicide, and how many of then surrendered or were subdued. It tells me that not everybody who does this kind of stuff goes into doing it with the same mind set.

I would like to point out a few things:

1) The UT-Austin shooting involved civilians coming with their own firearms and aiding an overwhelmed police force in stopping the shooter.

2) Over the past 20 years these kind of mass shooters have quadrupled. This includes the 10 year period that an AWB was in effect. Some of the things they correlate to are: lyme disease, lead concentrations in paint and the atmosphere from leaded gasoline (before you point out that leaded gasoline went bye-bye circa late 1980s...know that lead levels are not effeciently processed by the body and therefore can remain in one's system for decades), and the school reforms of Clinton, Bush, and now Obama. :)

At 1/21/13 11:54 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Bullcrap. If there were KKK members in front of polling paces trying to intimidate voters, they would be in prison right now.

For them to be in jail, evidence of intimidation would need to be brought forward. There was no evidence of intimidation by the Black Panthers, so there was no case. Remember: a civil suit was filed. The civil case went forward, but since the defendants didn't show up, a default judgment was entered. What this effectively meant was that the defendants lost the right to present their own evidence. The fact that a default judgment was entered did not absolve the DOJ of their duty to bring forth sufficient evidence to show that a violation of the law had occurred; that was the whole problem of this case, because there was no evidence that there was voter intimidation. If somebody had come forward and filed a complaint and the case wasn't followed up on, I would completely agree with you. However, the facts of the case are clear as night and day. This was entirely an embarrassing show of political theater.

That's great. So this is gonna lead to stupid PSA's and shit on TV 24/7, I can see it already. Just like Michelle Obama and her fat kids cause or Nancy Reagan and her Just Say No cause. They're going to spend money for TV ads, and not actually solve the problem. It's a face-saving measure. What we need is actual neurologists and doctors doing studies on this crap, not "launching a dialogue" of talking to people.

A PSA campaign would obviously be pretty ineffective on it's own, but it's being coupled with other measures which would make it more effective. As for studies, Obama is currently working on getting that done:

- Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

He has also called on Congress to end the freeze on gun violence research.

Well, there is no nation who just does it overnight. As for the bill of rights...that doesn't mean shit anymore. As far as Obama goes, we've had a guy thrown in jail without trial for making an anti-muslim video, we have people in gitmo with no trial, we have the patriot act, and most recently, we just passed a federal law that requires states to participate in a money grabbing scheme.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula had a trial. He pleaded guilty. Gitmo and the Patriot Act are both national disgraces for sure, but I have no idea what you're referring to when you say "we just passed a federal law that requires states to participate in a money grabbing scheme."

We don't need to be playing a game of "bargaining chips"

Yes, this is literally how negotiations work. Obama needs every card he can get to negotiate with the House GOP, have you payed attention to the Fiscal Cliff drama? Not even Boehner can control them.

That's what the assault weapons ban is.

I understand this perfectly well. I'm saying Obama has not made the renewal of the AWB the center of his gun control plan, nor does he expect to actually have it renewed.

Fair enough. Notice the guns used were not what the government defines as "assault weapons". Hell, one of the was a 22 pistol. Which under the proposed ban, will not be touched. Nor will 12 gauge shotguns (another gun used). The type of gun, is not the problem...fully automatic, military style weapons are already banned.

Which is why I don't support gun bans if they don't ban handguns. This is impossible without a Constitutional amendment. By the way, are automatic military style weapons actually banned? I thought you had to go through a shit ton of red tape to get them, on top of them being extremely expensive, but not impossible to own. Same with actual military hardware.

Yes, I know..I didn't mean LITERALLY 20 years ago...

Then why did the rise in mass shootings start occurring 40 years after the fact? That's a pretty large gap.

My point was, where's medications in water run off, the food is filled with hormones, and even genetically modified...and they don't even know the risks of genetic modification yet! Other nations do not seem to have the violence issues we do. I'm just saying, the food and water should be something we look at.

It's absolutely true that medicine has slowly been leeching into our water table, but as far as I'm aware there's no evidence available right now that makes the claim that there is an immediate threat to humans right now, nor will there be for the foreseeable future, let alone the effects on mental health. The concern is more direct, in the sense that it could badly fuck up the ecosystem in the not so distant future. Hormones is plausible, and there's likely to be some studies done on this that look into mental health issues, but a cursory Google search didn't bring me anything relevant. You can have a look to see which countries have fluoridated water and then look at their crime rate. Hong Kong is totally fluoridated, and has a ridiculously low intentional homicide rate.

If that was the case, I'd still support the second amendment.

And this is why it is politically impossible to impose a federal gun ban without a Constitutional amendment, because you're not alone. Far from it.

At 1/23/13 01:28 AM, Feoric wrote: For them to be in jail, evidence of intimidation would need to be brought forward.

Brandishing weapons at a polling place...especially racially motivated, is kind of a big deal

A PSA campaign would obviously be pretty ineffective on it's own, but it's being coupled with other measures which would make it more effective. As for studies, Obama is currently working on getting that done:

- Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

He has also called on Congress to end the freeze on gun violence research.

Well, hopefully this goes through. Hopefully the PROPER research is carried out

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula had a trial. He pleaded guilty. Gitmo and the Patriot Act are both national disgraces for sure, but I have no idea what you're referring to when you say "we just passed a federal law that requires states to participate in a money grabbing scheme."

He pleaded guilty to what? And how? Is making uploading an anti (insert religion) video even a triable crime? The money grabbing scheme, btw, is Obamacare, where it is now LAW to give your hard earned money, to insurance moguls. Remember when Obama was gonna put an end to that? I do. He ran on it. Twice.

Yes, this is literally how negotiations work. Obama needs every card he can get to negotiate with the House GOP, have you payed attention to the Fiscal Cliff drama? Not even Boehner can control them.

So?

Bargains and politics do not solve problems, especially one like this.

I understand this perfectly well. I'm saying Obama has not made the renewal of the AWB the center of his gun control plan, nor does he expect to actually have it renewed.

Then why bother? I know why. It's posturing.

Which is why I don't support gun bans if they don't ban handguns. This is impossible without a Constitutional amendment. By the way, are automatic military style weapons actually banned? I thought you had to go through a shit ton of red tape to get them, on top of them being extremely expensive, but not impossible to own. Same with actual military hardware.

No impossible, but practically so. It's prohibitively expensive. We're talking 10s of thousands, and on top of that, the Sheriff has to sign off on it, and that it very unlikely considering if you do go on a rampage, he'll probably lose his career.

It's absolutely true that medicine has slowly been leeching into our water table, but as far as I'm aware there's no evidence available right now that makes the claim that there is an immediate threat to humans right now, nor will there be for the foreseeable future, let alone the effects on mental health. The concern is more direct, in the sense that it could badly fuck up the ecosystem in the not so distant future. Hormones is plausible, and there's likely to be some studies done on this that look into mental health issues, but a cursory Google search didn't bring me anything relevant. You can have a look to see which countries have fluoridated water and then look at their crime rate. Hong Kong is totally fluoridated, and has a ridiculously low intentional homicide rate.

I'm not saying it's specifically flouride, or anything specific. I'm just speaking of GMO's and hormones in general. You have food and drug industry CEOs sitting on the FDA....I don't trust them to fully disclose negative side effects.

And this is why it is politically impossible to impose a federal gun ban without a Constitutional amendment, because you're not alone. Far from it.

I know

At 1/23/13 03:23 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Brandishing weapons at a polling place...especially racially motivated, is kind of a big deal

Sure, and I'm not defending them or condoning their philosophy, but unless you know names of people who were intimidated by them that day at the polling station, the DOJ did all it legally could given the evidence available.

He pleaded guilty to what? And how? Is making uploading an anti (insert religion) video even a triable crime? The money grabbing scheme, btw, is Obamacare, where it is now LAW to give your hard earned money, to insurance moguls. Remember when Obama was gonna put an end to that? I do. He ran on it. Twice.

He was not arrested because he made the video, he pleaded guilty to four counts of parole violation from when he was arrested in 2010 for check fraud.

So?

Bargains and politics do not solve problems, especially one like this.

What do you mean so? Whether you like it or not this is a highly political issue, and there is going to be an enormous amount of politics at play here. I wish that wasn't the case either, but you can't just wish it away. Obama posturing on the AWB is no different than Republicans saying (for years now) that Obama and the U.N. are going to take away your guns. Politicians aint worth shit without their base, and this kind of stuff excites the base. Having the AWB negotiated away is great for the GOP base, because they fucking hate it. Obama is just simply not going to reach a deal with the GOP on this issue by flat out saying what he wants and leaving it at that, he's going to shoot high and shoot low and see where the negotiations go from there. You may think it's a ridiculous process and transparently full of shit, I do too, but I doubt Obama would disagree with you as well.

Then why bother? I know why. It's posturing.

Yes, it is! It also puts him in a better position to get done what the both of us want to happen with regards to research, for example.

I'm not saying it's specifically flouride, or anything specific. I'm just speaking of GMO's and hormones in general. You have food and drug industry CEOs sitting on the FDA....I don't trust them to fully disclose negative side effects.

Well, I agree to an extent, but I like the idea of the FDA, because I don't trust medical companies to police themselves. On the other hand, there have been a number of scandals involving pharmaceutical companies influencing the FDA to speed line their application process through key contacts in the organization, and there have also been claims that certain firms managed to convince the FDA to stonewall potential substitute drugs from competitors in order for them to have a de facto monopoly on it (and also that international drugs have been historically stonewalled by the FDA as a pseudo-protectionist measure for US pharmaceutical firms). It's not like the current FDA is a perfect protectionist system, both in terms of allowance of viable drugs and trying to ensure fair market play (by not creating barriers to entry through their own corruption). It's not as horrible as many anti-FDA blowhards make it it to be, but it isn't great, either. I certainly don't pretend that the current system is perfect, but the answer is not to relax rules or throw away the whole system.

To get back on topic, I'd take the FDA's word on anything compared to the word of any gun lobbyist group on any issue.

I know

Great!

At 1/22/13 01:24 PM, TheMason wrote: 1) The UT-Austin shooting involved civilians coming with their own firearms and aiding an overwhelmed police force in stopping the shooter.

Yet he still managed to kill 14 people at the school and injured 32 people. It's worth mentioning that the good samaritan who helped the three officers take him down accidentally shot his rifle which blew their cover, and one officer immediately shot all 6 bullets from his revolver at Whitman from a distance of 50 feet, and they all missed. This is why having teachers with guns is such a monumentally stupid idea. Nobody has perfect accuracy, especially under pressure in tense situations. The more bullets you have flying around, the more accidents there can be.

2) Over the past 20 years these kind of mass shooters have quadrupled. This includes the 10 year period that an AWB was in effect. Some of the things they correlate to are: lyme disease, lead concentrations in paint and the atmosphere from leaded gasoline (before you point out that leaded gasoline went bye-bye circa late 1980s...know that lead levels are not effeciently processed by the body and therefore can remain in one's system for decades), and the school reforms of Clinton, Bush, and now Obama. :)

Interestingly, Whitman had a cancerous growth pressing up against his amygdala. Before his rampage, he mentioned in a later that he wanted his body to be autopsied to see if there was âEUoea physical cause for his mental anguish." When the autopsy was performed, the region of his amygdala had a a walnut sized tumor. This tumor was compressing his amygdala, causing it to be stimulated at all times. It's assumed to have significantly contributed to his psychosis, since he was apparently a pretty normal guy growing up.

In order to address the issue of mass shooters, you want to investigate things that you say correlate, like lyme disease and lead concentrations. Have you looked into Internet Explorer?

At 1/23/13 04:58 AM, Feoric wrote:
In order to address the issue of mass shooters, you want to investigate things that you say correlate, like lyme disease and lead concentrations. Have you looked into Internet Explorer?

Ahahaha wow nice

At 1/23/13 04:58 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 1/22/13 01:24 PM, TheMason wrote:

Yet he still managed to kill 14 people at the school and injured 32 people. It's worth mentioning that the good samaritan who helped the three officers take him down accidentally shot his rifle which blew their cover, and one officer immediately shot all 6 bullets from his revolver at Whitman from a distance of 50 feet, and they all missed. This is why having teachers with guns is such a monumentally stupid idea. Nobody has perfect accuracy, especially under pressure in tense situations. The more bullets you have flying around, the more accidents there can be.

I'll address the 'Teachers to Troops' idea later and elsewhere.

There was more than one good Samaritan. Many responded and their combined fire pinned Whitman down for others to enter the tower and take out the threat.

In order to address the issue of mass shooters, you want to investigate things that you say correlate, like lyme disease and lead concentrations. Have you looked into Internet Explorer?

Please don't hurt yourself patting your own back for your wit (sure wouldn't be for your wisdom :P )!

LYME DISEASE
Heard about this on the Ed Schultz show on Sirius Left. A MD called in talking about Lyme rage...a psychosis associated with Lyme disease. Something pathological makes sense.

LEAD POISONING
can cause psychosis. Concentrations of lead pollution correlate to violent geographic areas. Heard about this from the bastion of NRA propaganda called the Huffington Post. :)

But hey... if you've got no point try misdirection disguised as wit! ;)

At 1/23/13 04:58 AM, Feoric wrote: Sure, and I'm not defending them or condoning their philosophy, but unless you know names of people who were intimidated by them that day at the polling station, the DOJ did all it legally could given the evidence available.

It was on fucking film man. This DOJ is soft and everyone knows it

He was not arrested because he made the video, he pleaded guilty to four counts of parole violation from when he was arrested in 2010 for check fraud.

Dude, we argue a lot, but I don't think you're dumb enough to assume that you think his arrest just happened to coincide with the attacks on the Consulate, which the President claimed was because of his video.

What do you mean so? Whether you like it or not this is a highly political issue, and there is going to be an enormous amount of politics at play here. I wish that wasn't the case either, but you can't just wish it away. Obama posturing on the AWB is no different than Republicans saying (for years now) that Obama and the U.N. are going to take away your guns. Politicians aint worth shit without their base, and this kind of stuff excites the base. Having the AWB negotiated away is great for the GOP base, because they fucking hate it. Obama is just simply not going to reach a deal with the GOP on this issue by flat out saying what he wants and leaving it at that, he's going to shoot high and shoot low and see where the negotiations go from there. You may think it's a ridiculous process and transparently full of shit, I do too, but I doubt Obama would disagree with you as well.

Politics and compromises, especially in this administration, are the reason we're having such major problems. We can't even get a budget passed because everyone (in DC) is afraid of losing voters. The problem is politics as a career. We should not have career politicians. It creates a conflict of interest.

Well, I agree to an extent, but I like the idea of the FDA, because I don't trust medical companies to police themselves. On the other hand, there have been a number of scandals involving pharmaceutical companies influencing the FDA to speed line their application process through key contacts in the organization, and there have also been claims that certain firms managed to convince the FDA to stonewall potential substitute drugs from competitors in order for them to have a de facto monopoly on it (and also that international drugs have been historically stonewalled by the FDA as a pseudo-protectionist measure for US pharmaceutical firms). It's not like the current FDA is a perfect protectionist system, both in terms of allowance of viable drugs and trying to ensure fair market play (by not creating barriers to entry through their own corruption). It's not as horrible as many anti-FDA blowhards make it it to be, but it isn't great, either. I certainly don't pretend that the current system is perfect, but the answer is not to relax rules or throw away the whole system.

And that is the problem. The FDA is far too corruptible. The FDA is basically a safeguard that permits medical companies to police themselves.

At 1/23/13 12:55 PM, LemonCrush wrote: It was on fucking film man. This DOJ is soft and everyone knows it

Did the video document them intimidating voters and/or actively preventing people from voting? Did anyone come out and say they were intimidated? No? Then there's no voter intimidation case, and there's nothing left to discuss.

Dude, we argue a lot, but I don't think you're dumb enough to assume that you think his arrest just happened to coincide with the attacks on the Consulate, which the President claimed was because of his video.

We're covering a lot of ground which is not related to the topic of gun control. His arrest coincided with the attack because he lied to federal authorities about his involvement in the film when he was investigated (he used a fake name, Sam Bacile). Also:

"Nakoula, who talked guardedly about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer."

I recommend this article (at least read #3 if you have no interest in reading the whole thing).

Politics and compromises, especially in this administration, are the reason we're having such major problems. We can't even get a budget passed because everyone (in DC) is afraid of losing voters. The problem is politics as a career. We should not have career politicians. It creates a conflict of interest.

It's hard to compromise with people who are hell bent on being ideologically pure and damn the consequences. This is hardly Obama's fault, take a look at what Obama wanted to get done with the Fiscal Cliff and see where the Tea Party took him.

At 1/23/13 12:54 PM, TheMason wrote: Please don't hurt yourself patting your own back for your wit (sure wouldn't be for your wisdom :P )!

Don't take it personal, I was just looking for an opportunity to post that image.

LYME DISEASE
Heard about this on the Ed Schultz show on Sirius Left. A MD called in talking about Lyme rage...a psychosis associated with Lyme disease. Something pathological makes sense.

Let me just start off saying that it's undeniable that Lyme Disease causes psychological symptoms. However, I think this Lyme Rage label overspecifies. With pretty much any disease, not just Lyme, there is a dramatic shift in symptoms from one patient to the next. For example, depression is fairly common symptom of Lyme disease. So is anxiety and mental fatigue. If an accredited doctor claims that Lyme Rage may be experienced by some, then fine! I've never heard of it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But that also doesn't mean Lyme Rage accounts for a significant amount of incidents, either. By all means, let the CDC and other institutions study this. I think it's plausible, but unlikely, that this would adequately explain what exactly was going inside Adam Lanza's head, but there's no harm in a scientific investigation which would hopefully give more literature on the subject.

LEAD POISONING
can cause psychosis. Concentrations of lead pollution correlate to violent geographic areas. Heard about this from the bastion of NRA propaganda called the Huffington Post. :)

I read about this on Mother Jones, where this was originally reported on if I'm not mistaken. And you're right! I'm normally not a big fan, but TYT has an interesting discussion about it. I still think it's important to emphasis that there's a correlation, and that there are many variables at play here, but I certainly won't just handwave this away. I'd like to see a connection made between areas with high lead concentration and their poverty level.

At 1/24/13 08:33 PM, Feoric wrote: Did the video document them intimidating voters and/or actively preventing people from voting? Did anyone come out and say they were intimidated? No? Then there's no voter intimidation case, and there's nothing left to discuss.

So, it's a law that if have to actually verbalize it? That's bullshit? Brandishing a weapon, especially at a polling place, is intimidation. That's why they were there with billy clubs in the first place. Should be obvious to anyone with a brain.

We're covering a lot of ground which is not related to the topic of gun control. His arrest coincided with the attack because he lied to federal authorities about his involvement in the film when he was investigated (he used a fake name, Sam Bacile). Also:

He should have never been investigated at all. The fact that they investigated him for having an opinion is bad enough, but then to pin the fault of the dead ambassadors in Libya, on him, to cover up foreign policy fuckups, is disgusting, and in my eyes, one of the reasons I wouldn't piss on Obama if he was on fire.

Investigating the guy was wrong. Scapegoating him was wrong.

"Nakoula, who talked guardedly about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer."

That's fine.

It's hard to compromise with people who are hell bent on being ideologically pure and damn the consequences. This is hardly Obama's fault, take a look at what Obama wanted to get done with the Fiscal Cliff and see where the Tea Party took him.

Oh jeez, I guess everything bad is everyone's fault but Obama's, right? "It was my predecessor's fault". "It's Republican's fault". That's such a bullshit cop-out excuse. He has been President for FIVE fucking years. Blaming the opposition and other people got old back in March 2009. Hell, for his first 2 years, he had democrats all up in the House.

Every politician has problems with their opposition. Most of them overcome it. Hell, Bush convinced "peace loving" democrats to invade Iraq. Every single fucking president has had very little problem reaching across the aisle. Fuck, even Romney, as governor did so. Obama seems to be the only one having an issue. Time for him to stop playing a victim and start being this supposed leader he's claimed to be.

Obama himself has been pretty un-budgingly hellbent ideologically too.