Jump to content

Political prestidigitation


old man emu
 Share

Recommended Posts

As usual, a major point of disagreement in US politics is gun control. The Yanks seem to worship the Second Amendment as Divine Revelation. Any attempt by a Blue President to water down unrestricted firearms ownership is forcefully shouted down by the Reds. However, a Blue President is elected on the promise that something will be done to restrict firearm ownership.

 

Here's where the political prestidigitation comes into play. Biden has set out his stance on forearms control. A key point is to have all firearms, and magazines for them registered. Sounds reasonable. But here is the sleight of hand. For starters, the registration fee for every firearm AND every magazine as separate items will be $200. Also the details of the firearm AND the name and address of the registered owner will be in a Federal register, from which any person can obtain information under Freedom of Information.

 

In this video, the presenter shows the two most common firearm types people have in the USA - a rifle and a pistol. The rifle would incur a total cost of $400 to register with one magazine. The pistol he shows would cost $800 to register because the manufacturer supplies it with three magazines. Then there is the additional cost of having the registration number engraved on the items to the standard set out in the National Firearms Act. That can cost up to $50 per item. Even those who would agree with gun registration would object to those sort of fees, especially since many people with good reasons own a number of firearms.

 

 

So there is a brilliant bit of wool pulling by the Blues. "I promised stricter gun control, but my proposals were rejected by Congress and the Senate." It looks like he's come out of the battle tattered and torn, but in reality he's maintained the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, old man emu said:

So there is a brilliant bit of wool pulling by the Blues. "I promised stricter gun control, but my proposals were rejected by Congress and the Senate." It looks like he's come out of the battle tattered and torn, but in reality he's maintained the status quo.

Sounds logical; probably the smartest way for Joe to back out of a hole. Similar sleight of hand to the way UN Security Council draft resolutions work. How many times do we hear in the press that the Americans or Russians have vetoed what sounds on the face of it a very reasonable resolution. We think they are terrible for doing so, but the devil is in the detail. Resolutions are often worded with secondary clauses that they know the other side will never accept. They are written with the intent to fail. The opposition appears in the press to be vetoing a good resolution and the authors of the resolution score a propaganda hit. All done on purpose. It looks like Biden's using the same hat,  just a different rabbit.

Edited by willedoo
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice how the USA keeps threatening to leave the UN and have already left other global organizations like the WHO?

America has enjoyed mastery in these world bodies for generations, but now that China and developing countries often challenge their dominance they take their bat and ball and go home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

Notice how the USA keeps threatening to leave the UN and have already left other global organizations like the WHO?

America has enjoyed mastery in these world bodies for generations, but now that China and developing countries often challenge their dominance they take their bat and ball and go home.

OK, that has been largely in the last 4 years. Listening to Bidens speeches, he fully intends to re-engage in the Paris agreement, the WHO and even Iran.

 

Of course, while the US has cried foul over NATO countries not pulling their financial weight... the US I think still has many years of back-contributions owing to the UN..

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Yenn said:

Where is the democracy in a veto?

This has always shown up the hypocricy of the USA who make a big noise about a veto being applied. Of course they never use it themselves.

Erm.. the Veto is another check and balance in the US constitution. It is actually not a bad thing. The idea is that if congress pass something that is untoward, the President, who is "popularly" elected, can override.. however, there is a check on that, too.. If the congress vote 2/3 to overturn the veto, it is overturned. I guess the idea is that when congress enjoyrs a slender bicameral majority, the vast minority are not unduly disadvantaged: https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Vetoes_vrd.htm

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't the veto rights that failed, it was the failure of two members to exercise that right and in doing so, allowing the resolution to pass. Even without UN backing, the war probably would have gone ahead with the US and allies involved. But that aside, the comment about a recipe for war was in reference to war between the permanent five and not proxies. If you have three from the West lording it over two from the East, sparks will fly eventually. The right of veto makes a two against three punchup less likely. Between the five of them, they have a lot of nukes so the veto right makes sure they play together without too many fights.

Edited by willedoo
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Does Australia get any credit from Russia for having signed the non-proliferation treaty?

Probably no more than the other 187 signatories; I doubt Putin will be rushing over here to pat us on the back and shout us a vodka. They're probably more concerned by the four nuclear armed nations that haven't signed.

 

Makes you wonder about the reasoning behind nuclear war. Is it just a deterrent theory that has the possibility of an accident? Surely the powers that be don't seriously think there's much future if they let them go. Russia and the U.S. each have about 1,600 strategic nukes deployed and ready to go. So after firing 3,200 nukes at each other, do they run off to the bunker and prime the other 10,000 that are stockpiled. Looking on the bright side, the numbers are down on the 40,000 odd nukes per side in the 80's. Now we get blown up, but not quite so much.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what I reckon we should do... withdraw from the treaty and demand some stuff in return before signing up for it again....  OR we could use Roxby uranium to make a thousand nukes and get Jabiru to make a thousand long-range ground-hugging drones so that we could deliver a nasty counter-strike to any country silly enough to attack us.

We could pay for all this from our military budget. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pantex is the company designated to dismantle America's nukes. It employs a township of 3000 people. I read the 1996 article below, in 1998, when I first acquired a computer, and got connected to the 'net.

 

It was an eye-opening article, then - and when you consider that nearly another 25 yrs has passed since the article was written, and tens of thousands more nukes have since been dismantled - it really makes you understand why the world should be worried about nuclear weapon proliferation.

 

Repeat the same size operation in Russia, with the attendant Russian problems associated with trying to control nuclear devices via drunks, and poor training and poor command structures - and it makes one realise that the chances of another Russian nuclear accident, accompanied by a massive nuclear blast, are very high.

 

https://sussexfiles.org/alsus01b.htm

Edited by onetrack
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...