8.02.2004
Well, as per the assault weapons ban, I would challenge that the issue is moot anyway because the ban did exactly nothing. Basically, all it did was require cosmetic alterations of semi-automatic rifles to make them look safer (mechanically, they function the same), and restricted the manufacture of large-capactiy clips (20 rounds is now the limit, I believe, though there are multiplied BILLIONS of larger capacity clips that were created before the ban and are "grandfathered" in - you just can't legally make new ones). Later modifications required waiting periods and background checks, neither of which really work. I can still steal a gun from someone, buy one that has been stolen, or buy one from a private individual, completely bypassing any regulations.
The cosmetic alterations boiled down to a choice between any one of three things; "assault" weapons are generally classified as having a flash suppressor (a device on the end of the barrel that directs the flash of a shot axially away from the barrel so that it can't be seen well in the dark) a pistol-style grip and having a bayonet and are specified to be semi-automatic (fully automatic weapons require an FFL to purchase, and this just about requires an act of congress to get). You can choose one of the three to have on a weapon. Everyone chooses the pistol grip because a flash suppressor is useless and needless, as is a bayonet, and they require the least modification of the rifle. Short of this degenerating into an argument over the second amendment and the necessity or not of weapons being available to the public, be assured the supporting the ban but not caring about passing it is the obvious political choice to make, because it completely doesn't matter.
Also, as one who has had some experience with these weapons, I can tell you that it further doesn't matter because the weapons themselves are useless. They generally can't hit the broad side of a barn, and are very prone to malfunction (misfire, jam, etc). And full-auto is even more useless. Fully automatic weapons are ideally suited for having 50,000 troops on one hill shooting at 50,000 troops on another. You seriously CANNOT hit anything accurately beyond a range of about 5 feet. I shot one one time, and let me tell you, it is absolutely nothing like the movies. I even have video of my grandma shooting one... that one is funny. :) Lots of fun, lots of noise, lots of ammo, but absolutely no utility.
By far and away, the most deadly weapon ever created is the average hunting rifle. Long distance accuracy, flawless functioning, high-power, etc. Labelling assault weapons as assault weapons only obscures the argument.
As for good things Bush has done or been for, I can name a few
1.The partial-birth abortion ban. This was his most shining moment as a president, I think. I still haven't forgotten my paper on abortion - actually I have written and revised several. I will explain more in coming days.
2.Backing out of the Kyoto Protocol This is a bit technical - I have looked at it because I was originally for the Kyoto Protocol, but when you really get down to it, it is ineffectual and prohibitively expensive. This can turn into a lengthy technical discussion, but my best opinion as a geophysicist at this time is that there is a better way to reduce emissions.)
3.Backing out of the ABM treaty. ABMT bit the dust with the Cold war and MAD. ABMT was prohibiting development of interceptor missiles that can defend (hopefully - they sometimes fail) against a strike by N. Korea (a far more imminent threat than Iraq ever hoped to be). Russia is no longer an enemy and we should quit treating them as such.
There are others... I would need to think for a bit. I guess that the differences that people have lie in the fundamental nature of their worldviews. You really can group people into two general groups (right and left - NOT republican/democrat, though one will generally prefer one over the other with a continuum of views on issues inbetween). For instance I support the heterosexual/traditional definition of marriage, and can support it within the construct of my worldview, but since most of you would pretty much reject my worldview, you can therefore reject my conclusion because you reject the fundamental assumptions in my arguments. This is just a for-instance... I could prop up any argument for anything and we would most likely be at loggerheads because of this fundamental difference in worldviews. In a way, it is like we are speaking different languages or something like that. I think that it is so fundamental that we miss it unless we really sit and think for awhile.
You can try to make the case without reference to a worldview (largely the realm of ethics), but that is in the end doomed to failure because it provides no frame of reference. It is as useless as me saying that I am moving 5 miles an hour. You can build a worldview, but since nobody can completely divorce themselves from their own worldview, your constructed world will be different from someone elses, and different from your own, and they will still reject your argument, and you on some level will reject your own argument. It won't completely square with your sensibilities because it is a distortion of your own worldview.
So in the end, we are all doomed to argue in circles.
The cosmetic alterations boiled down to a choice between any one of three things; "assault" weapons are generally classified as having a flash suppressor (a device on the end of the barrel that directs the flash of a shot axially away from the barrel so that it can't be seen well in the dark) a pistol-style grip and having a bayonet and are specified to be semi-automatic (fully automatic weapons require an FFL to purchase, and this just about requires an act of congress to get). You can choose one of the three to have on a weapon. Everyone chooses the pistol grip because a flash suppressor is useless and needless, as is a bayonet, and they require the least modification of the rifle. Short of this degenerating into an argument over the second amendment and the necessity or not of weapons being available to the public, be assured the supporting the ban but not caring about passing it is the obvious political choice to make, because it completely doesn't matter.
Also, as one who has had some experience with these weapons, I can tell you that it further doesn't matter because the weapons themselves are useless. They generally can't hit the broad side of a barn, and are very prone to malfunction (misfire, jam, etc). And full-auto is even more useless. Fully automatic weapons are ideally suited for having 50,000 troops on one hill shooting at 50,000 troops on another. You seriously CANNOT hit anything accurately beyond a range of about 5 feet. I shot one one time, and let me tell you, it is absolutely nothing like the movies. I even have video of my grandma shooting one... that one is funny. :) Lots of fun, lots of noise, lots of ammo, but absolutely no utility.
By far and away, the most deadly weapon ever created is the average hunting rifle. Long distance accuracy, flawless functioning, high-power, etc. Labelling assault weapons as assault weapons only obscures the argument.
As for good things Bush has done or been for, I can name a few
1.The partial-birth abortion ban. This was his most shining moment as a president, I think. I still haven't forgotten my paper on abortion - actually I have written and revised several. I will explain more in coming days.
2.Backing out of the Kyoto Protocol This is a bit technical - I have looked at it because I was originally for the Kyoto Protocol, but when you really get down to it, it is ineffectual and prohibitively expensive. This can turn into a lengthy technical discussion, but my best opinion as a geophysicist at this time is that there is a better way to reduce emissions.)
3.Backing out of the ABM treaty. ABMT bit the dust with the Cold war and MAD. ABMT was prohibiting development of interceptor missiles that can defend (hopefully - they sometimes fail) against a strike by N. Korea (a far more imminent threat than Iraq ever hoped to be). Russia is no longer an enemy and we should quit treating them as such.
There are others... I would need to think for a bit. I guess that the differences that people have lie in the fundamental nature of their worldviews. You really can group people into two general groups (right and left - NOT republican/democrat, though one will generally prefer one over the other with a continuum of views on issues inbetween). For instance I support the heterosexual/traditional definition of marriage, and can support it within the construct of my worldview, but since most of you would pretty much reject my worldview, you can therefore reject my conclusion because you reject the fundamental assumptions in my arguments. This is just a for-instance... I could prop up any argument for anything and we would most likely be at loggerheads because of this fundamental difference in worldviews. In a way, it is like we are speaking different languages or something like that. I think that it is so fundamental that we miss it unless we really sit and think for awhile.
You can try to make the case without reference to a worldview (largely the realm of ethics), but that is in the end doomed to failure because it provides no frame of reference. It is as useless as me saying that I am moving 5 miles an hour. You can build a worldview, but since nobody can completely divorce themselves from their own worldview, your constructed world will be different from someone elses, and different from your own, and they will still reject your argument, and you on some level will reject your own argument. It won't completely square with your sensibilities because it is a distortion of your own worldview.
So in the end, we are all doomed to argue in circles.
< 00:56 >< /j >
