Of course the analogy proves something. It demonstrates that, regardless of the law and the amount of restrictions, those who want a particular product WILL obtain it.
We also can deduce, based upon illegal drugs, the following:
1) That the potency (firepower) will increase. If you want to buy a hand gun, you're likely not going for a pissy 38 cal, you'll go for the 45 acp. Hell, maybe you'll even go for the fully automatic pistols.
2) There will be more folks setting up shop to convert / manuf fully automatic weapons-probably mostly pistols becuase they penalities will converge.
3) Violence will increase.
I'm willing to discuss changes in the various firearm regulations that actually could be effective, none in the recent offering, in my opinion were, certainly not if your intention was "to prevent another Sandy Hook". That was clearly the underlying meme with all the various victim’s parents on the Hill over the last few days and in the Rose Garden.
I find it curious that many folks will talk about how the drug war needs to end but fail to see the parallels in firearm legislation. Is it not clear to you that banning firearms-and yes there have been calls for this-and like legislation, will result in similar outcomes as that of making various drugs illegal?
I take exception to the words "tortured 20 children". Unless you're telling me he water boarded them or put a gun in their face and said he was going to kill them, I don't call that torture. Massacred, murdered yes, torture, no. If you're going to use torture, then agree that what we've done in Afghanistan and Iraq is torture too and demand prosecution of the various admin officials.
Lastly, while the "knowledge base" here at the LOOG is rather high about the various mechanics and aspects of firearms, as it is with many subjects, that's not the same with our elected officials. When I can watch a video of a legislator stating that 30 round magazines will eventually be 'consumed', clearly indicating ZERO understanding of the subject matter at hand, it gives me pause to think that any legislation introduced would not be effective. Those bozos don’t even know what they are talking about.
Services do not develop unless there is a market for them, baring gov't interaction. There is a need for these services, as has been mentioned, because these people are underserved by the "banking community". I'm sure we all know why. Among other things, they aren't good credit risks, and in all deferernce to the CRA, you don't make money on people who have no money.
"I do not like the payday lending business.....That these transactions are voluntary in nature does not wash away the ugly reality in which transactions take place."
I don't like it either, but it provides a service needed and desired. I also don't like drug use, but folks want to get their high on and they should be free to do so if that's there thing. It's called "choice", something increasingly less common that it should be.
Try taking a cell phone over from your employer. Sure, just call them up and change the billing info, we've "released" the phone.
Call them up, give them my info, account now updated. Right.
Then I start getting non payment notices because they sent the bill to the old address.
Then they set up the account wrong and billed me for text messages.
Then I found out they'd been billing me for the wrong state taxes, which were, ofc, higher than my local area. After calling to complain, they said the 1) the account wasn't "fully" in my name and 2) they couldn't determine the amount of over charges. It took them 2 months and I think they just gave me a 20 dollar credit to make me go away.
Since those particular guys are not directly on the tax payer payroll, I'll take a pass on them, only noting that what's good for one side is good for the other.
For the cable company, I'd for sure say it was the competition.
I will say that I've never had a technical rep be a PITA. It's always been the customer service folks on the phone. I had a technical guy come out to diagnose a problem with my cable service and he was very thourough. The problem was that the CS guys hand't done what they should have and "registered" my new cable modem when I returned my cable company provided one. As a result, my service was spotty. The tech guy spotted it and, registed the modem, gave me his card, and his boss's card too in case I couldn't reach him.
I'm not able to view the video and I generally agree that financial reform should take place. Aside: I'm for 100% transparancy but I'm not for limiting contributions.
I actually think that the most effective way to "manage" politicians is to micromanage them on their voting record. An interest group must seek commitments from them for certain things and punish them if they fail to live up. Gary North had an excellent summary, I can't find at the moment.
Let's assume that's the case. In this new world, there still will be a surplus of these types. They likely will fight over the fewer positions, and there will be a period of time when everyone is jockeying for position, power, etc., not just the useless.
I think you'd see more "valuable" people less willing to put up with the 'crats machinations when they are focused on eating.
I've been married so I know what you mean :) Perhaps it's a matter of degree. Some "social" condemnation or a few drops in a politician's favorability rating is not enough. Oh the horrors! The only thing that has any real lasting impact and serves as a deterrent is incaration, fines, or a needle.
And what about all the unnamed supporters who wrote the legal opinions, implement the policies etc. They aren't, for the most part, public, so the public thinking poorly of them really isn't a big deal. Now, perhaps, public shaming of these underlings MIGHT be sufficient if they were universally shunned.....
You're correct James, but let's get down to brass tacks.
You really think it will be harder for the US to do it again? I'm calling BS on that. How many times have we found out about stuff the gov't has done years later and then we allow it to happen again?
If there is no punishment for the deed, there is little deterence. Oh, and you should include Obama in your last comments. He's just as guilty as all the rest, if only for his failure to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators.
So it's a private party and not a school funded or sponsorded event?
I'm trying to understand why I should give a damn then about the fact that it's segregated or that someone girls want to change it. Good for them. Why is this even being covered?
"No one is allowed to complain about the lack of fairness or “reverse racism” of a system aimed at ending anti-black racism while simultaneously denying that we live in a society of extreme anti-black racism."
Sorry, YOU don't tell me what I can and cannot do. We all know racism exists and we know it occurs on all color sides. Not talking about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. All of it is still wrong. No one should get a pass for it but there are plenty of anecdotal examples that some groups do and some do not. That is not acceptable.
Most of the discussion went down the well of online vs. not and such, but I want to comment on something else. It was briefly talked about at the beginning: cost.
As was mentioned, there is little incentive to mitigate cost and every incentive not to. State funding for schools has continued to rise (public education is a perceived positive by the populace) baring recent pull backs/steady state funding from the recent economic situation. When your budget is going up you have less incentive to manage costs.
Additionally, the massive generation of cheap and easy money has made education loans easy to obtain. When it's easy to get debt you're less likely to question the cost--you're paying someone else later for a consumed good now. (doesn't this sound like health care?)
One cost reducing pressure would be to eliminate or reduce easy debt for education and or limiting or holding flat public college funding.
"If you take her writing at face value, she’s clearly making light of the reported crime. I hope she’s not doing that."
Oh, she's making light of it...big time. This is the part where I get all cheesed off because if the scenario had been fully reversed...4 guys vs 1 girl, and a male reporter making light of the story, there would be RECRIMINATIONS ALL OVER TEH INTERWEBS. Slate/Huffpo/Jezebel would be all over this.
I'm not familiar with this particular community, but I'll assume that they were there first or have a majority of the population, so it's their community. Their rules. As long as no criminal action is taken (beating the outsiders) I'm pretty much cool with it. After all, this is democracy at work. *smirk*
Now a Muslim community that encouraged Sharia might be a different thing altogether. Do they enforce Sharia upon non belivers? Same points as above.
All those examples are acceptable to me. It is their community--they can run it how they like, as long as you have choices to go other places nearby.
I equate it to a business that has a "no firearms" sign on the front door, like the one I visited in Jerome AZ. The owner wants no guns in his store. You are free to come in as long as you comply, or you can shop elsewhere.
A modification of Clint Eastwood's words in "Unforgiven". “Like's got nothing to do with it.” I may not like it, but I will tolerate it, because I expect the similar consideration for issues that are important to me.
I'm all for this. They want to live how they want to live and they tell you they aren't going to welcome you with open arms if you don't "conform". Just a smaller version of what all societies do. Reminds me of the signs outside Italian Catholic Churches.
I do take exception to the "feeding off of taxes" part, but that just puts them in the same catagory of most Americans.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Little Children Suffer”
Of course the analogy proves something. It demonstrates that, regardless of the law and the amount of restrictions, those who want a particular product WILL obtain it.
We also can deduce, based upon illegal drugs, the following:
1) That the potency (firepower) will increase. If you want to buy a hand gun, you're likely not going for a pissy 38 cal, you'll go for the 45 acp. Hell, maybe you'll even go for the fully automatic pistols.
2) There will be more folks setting up shop to convert / manuf fully automatic weapons-probably mostly pistols becuase they penalities will converge.
3) Violence will increase.
On “Payday Lending – Some Thoughts”
The shady-ness of it all. I don't like telemarketers and high pressure sales tactics either...
On “The Little Children Suffer”
A few random comments:
I'm willing to discuss changes in the various firearm regulations that actually could be effective, none in the recent offering, in my opinion were, certainly not if your intention was "to prevent another Sandy Hook". That was clearly the underlying meme with all the various victim’s parents on the Hill over the last few days and in the Rose Garden.
I find it curious that many folks will talk about how the drug war needs to end but fail to see the parallels in firearm legislation. Is it not clear to you that banning firearms-and yes there have been calls for this-and like legislation, will result in similar outcomes as that of making various drugs illegal?
I take exception to the words "tortured 20 children". Unless you're telling me he water boarded them or put a gun in their face and said he was going to kill them, I don't call that torture. Massacred, murdered yes, torture, no. If you're going to use torture, then agree that what we've done in Afghanistan and Iraq is torture too and demand prosecution of the various admin officials.
Lastly, while the "knowledge base" here at the LOOG is rather high about the various mechanics and aspects of firearms, as it is with many subjects, that's not the same with our elected officials. When I can watch a video of a legislator stating that 30 round magazines will eventually be 'consumed', clearly indicating ZERO understanding of the subject matter at hand, it gives me pause to think that any legislation introduced would not be effective. Those bozos don’t even know what they are talking about.
"
Not sure I'd go with alternative, but Jews for the Preservation of Firearms is one group I've heard of.
www.jpfo.org
On “Payday Lending – Some Thoughts”
Services do not develop unless there is a market for them, baring gov't interaction. There is a need for these services, as has been mentioned, because these people are underserved by the "banking community". I'm sure we all know why. Among other things, they aren't good credit risks, and in all deferernce to the CRA, you don't make money on people who have no money.
"I do not like the payday lending business.....That these transactions are voluntary in nature does not wash away the ugly reality in which transactions take place."
I don't like it either, but it provides a service needed and desired. I also don't like drug use, but folks want to get their high on and they should be free to do so if that's there thing. It's called "choice", something increasingly less common that it should be.
On “It’s Getting Hot, No?”
Just grilled some steaks and asparagus. This is on tap soon:
Grilled beef kebobs with sumac (spice) (marinated in olive oil, lime)
Grilled veggies: portabellos, tomatoe, onion, etc.
Tzaki sauce (greek yogurt, lime, salt, diced cuke, dill)
South African Syrah
Zomg!
On “Adventures in Customer Service”
Try taking a cell phone over from your employer. Sure, just call them up and change the billing info, we've "released" the phone.
Call them up, give them my info, account now updated. Right.
Then I start getting non payment notices because they sent the bill to the old address.
Then they set up the account wrong and billed me for text messages.
Then I found out they'd been billing me for the wrong state taxes, which were, ofc, higher than my local area. After calling to complain, they said the 1) the account wasn't "fully" in my name and 2) they couldn't determine the amount of over charges. It took them 2 months and I think they just gave me a 20 dollar credit to make me go away.
Total idiots.
On “Enhanced Interrogation is Torture.”
Since those particular guys are not directly on the tax payer payroll, I'll take a pass on them, only noting that what's good for one side is good for the other.
On “Adventures in Customer Service”
For the cable company, I'd for sure say it was the competition.
I will say that I've never had a technical rep be a PITA. It's always been the customer service folks on the phone. I had a technical guy come out to diagnose a problem with my cable service and he was very thourough. The problem was that the CS guys hand't done what they should have and "registered" my new cable modem when I returned my cable company provided one. As a result, my service was spotty. The tech guy spotted it and, registed the modem, gave me his card, and his boss's card too in case I couldn't reach him.
On “On the need for political finance reform…”
I'm not able to view the video and I generally agree that financial reform should take place. Aside: I'm for 100% transparancy but I'm not for limiting contributions.
I actually think that the most effective way to "manage" politicians is to micromanage them on their voting record. An interest group must seek commitments from them for certain things and punish them if they fail to live up. Gary North had an excellent summary, I can't find at the moment.
On “Continuing Thoughts on Careers and the Workplace”
Let's assume that's the case. In this new world, there still will be a surplus of these types. They likely will fight over the fewer positions, and there will be a period of time when everyone is jockeying for position, power, etc., not just the useless.
I think you'd see more "valuable" people less willing to put up with the 'crats machinations when they are focused on eating.
On “Enhanced Interrogation is Torture.”
James,
I've been married so I know what you mean :) Perhaps it's a matter of degree. Some "social" condemnation or a few drops in a politician's favorability rating is not enough. Oh the horrors! The only thing that has any real lasting impact and serves as a deterrent is incaration, fines, or a needle.
And what about all the unnamed supporters who wrote the legal opinions, implement the policies etc. They aren't, for the most part, public, so the public thinking poorly of them really isn't a big deal. Now, perhaps, public shaming of these underlings MIGHT be sufficient if they were universally shunned.....
"
You're correct James, but let's get down to brass tacks.
You really think it will be harder for the US to do it again? I'm calling BS on that. How many times have we found out about stuff the gov't has done years later and then we allow it to happen again?
If there is no punishment for the deed, there is little deterence. Oh, and you should include Obama in your last comments. He's just as guilty as all the rest, if only for his failure to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators.
"
So what?
If no one in gov't is willing to indict and prosecute, it doesn't matter.
On “In Which The City of Portland Makes Me Seriously Consider Becoming a Registered Libertarian”
This really doesn't surprise me. Try deal with the Core of Engineers.
On “So, explain to me again how the South is just the same as everywhere else?”
So it's a private party and not a school funded or sponsorded event?
I'm trying to understand why I should give a damn then about the fact that it's segregated or that someone girls want to change it. Good for them. Why is this even being covered?
On “New Rule”
"No one is allowed to complain about the lack of fairness or “reverse racism” of a system aimed at ending anti-black racism while simultaneously denying that we live in a society of extreme anti-black racism."
Sorry, YOU don't tell me what I can and cannot do. We all know racism exists and we know it occurs on all color sides. Not talking about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. All of it is still wrong. No one should get a pass for it but there are plenty of anecdotal examples that some groups do and some do not. That is not acceptable.
On “Outreach, Rand Paul Style”
So in other words, a "typical" politician.
The apple that fell from the tree is less than the tree. Sadly.
On “Federal U & The Rising Cost of Higher Ed”
Most of the discussion went down the well of online vs. not and such, but I want to comment on something else. It was briefly talked about at the beginning: cost.
As was mentioned, there is little incentive to mitigate cost and every incentive not to. State funding for schools has continued to rise (public education is a perceived positive by the populace) baring recent pull backs/steady state funding from the recent economic situation. When your budget is going up you have less incentive to manage costs.
Additionally, the massive generation of cheap and easy money has made education loans easy to obtain. When it's easy to get debt you're less likely to question the cost--you're paying someone else later for a consumed good now. (doesn't this sound like health care?)
One cost reducing pressure would be to eliminate or reduce easy debt for education and or limiting or holding flat public college funding.
On “Under a Field of Flowers: Captain Emil Kapaun”
THAT's a Hero.
On ““Of course, one man’s sexual assault is another man’s sexual fantasy come true.””
"If you take her writing at face value, she’s clearly making light of the reported crime. I hope she’s not doing that."
Oh, she's making light of it...big time. This is the part where I get all cheesed off because if the scenario had been fully reversed...4 guys vs 1 girl, and a male reporter making light of the story, there would be RECRIMINATIONS ALL OVER TEH INTERWEBS. Slate/Huffpo/Jezebel would be all over this.
It just illuminates the hypocrisy well.
On “Sign Language”
I'm not familiar with this particular community, but I'll assume that they were there first or have a majority of the population, so it's their community. Their rules. As long as no criminal action is taken (beating the outsiders) I'm pretty much cool with it. After all, this is democracy at work. *smirk*
Now a Muslim community that encouraged Sharia might be a different thing altogether. Do they enforce Sharia upon non belivers? Same points as above.
"
Curious as I'm very tolerate and not very accepting. :)
"
Kazzy,
All those examples are acceptable to me. It is their community--they can run it how they like, as long as you have choices to go other places nearby.
I equate it to a business that has a "no firearms" sign on the front door, like the one I visited in Jerome AZ. The owner wants no guns in his store. You are free to come in as long as you comply, or you can shop elsewhere.
A modification of Clint Eastwood's words in "Unforgiven". “Like's got nothing to do with it.” I may not like it, but I will tolerate it, because I expect the similar consideration for issues that are important to me.
"
I'm all for this. They want to live how they want to live and they tell you they aren't going to welcome you with open arms if you don't "conform". Just a smaller version of what all societies do. Reminds me of the signs outside Italian Catholic Churches.
I do take exception to the "feeding off of taxes" part, but that just puts them in the same catagory of most Americans.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.