Political Roundtable - Part VII

[nate33]

Continued from here

[dobrojim]

re grid defection

I'm not sure I was aware that there were/are states that are outright prohibiting grid defection.
My comment to that would be twofold:

1. Not sure it would stand up legally all the way to the SC but maybe. Not sure pols would be able to
stand behind these laws at such time as there are more than just a very few outliers who actually
do want to defect completely. So I'd say the long term future of these laws is somewhat uncertain.

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2015_04_07_report_release_the_economics_of_load_defection
2.

we said then and we’ll say again now: just because grid defection may become an economic option doesn’t mean customers will actually choose to cut the cord with their utility, and there are plenty of reasons why doing so would be a suboptimal outcome. So in The Economics of Load Defection we focused our analysis on a much more likely scenario that could represent an even greater challenge: customer economics for grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems. Since such systems would benefit from grid resources, they could be more optimally sized, thus making them smaller, less expensive, economic for more customers sooner in more places, and adopted faster.

There is a lengthy economic analysis that follows at the above url. The announcement of the PowerWall
makes the bolded part that much more relevant.

[Zonkerbl]

Crime has been on a general downward trend over the last few decades. Violent crime too.

I think what's changed is our acceptance of violence. We thought it was normal before but now we're starting to stand up to the "pry mah rahfle outta mah cold dead fingers" bullies. It's just not acceptable anymore and it has to stop.

[dobrojim]

As a practical matter it seems to me that the gun rights folks will ultimately have to be
the ones to offer up some remedy. They are actually the minority and they risk eventual
action by the majority when the perception of need to address the issue, whether reality
based or not, becomes overwhelming. I'm not saying this is going to happen any time in the
relatively near future but eventually...

I have a FB friend who somewhat regularly posts links to news stories of horrible accidents
or incidents involving guns. In what I consider a clever way, he generally comments only
by saying something to the effect of "if only something could be done".

[dobrojim]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/dlin71[/Tweet]

Not sure how to properly do this but Daniel Lin on twitter to state of SC

Instructions for appropriate display of Confederate flag after tragedy:
1) Lower to half-mast
2) Keep lowering until removed
3) You're done

[Zonkerbl]

I'm starting to respond to "from my cold dead fingers" with "that can be arranged."

[nate33]

I still would like to see evidence that stricter gun laws reduce crime. Currently, the poster child for gun control is the city of Chicago, one of the most crime-riddled cities in the nation.

Also, the Charleston shooter obtained his gun illegally. Reports are he either stole it from his mother, or his father give it to him for his birthday. Either is a violation of law. As usual, gun control laws only work on law abiding citizens. It is the law breakers who use the guns violently.

[Zonkerbl]

I still would like to see evidence that stricter gun laws reduce crime. Currently, the poster child for gun control is the city of Chicago, one of the most crime-riddled cities in the nation.

Also, the Charleston shooter obtained his gun illegally. Reports are he either stole it from his mother, or his father give it to him for his birthday. Either is a violation of law. As usual, gun control laws only work on law abiding citizens. It is the law breakers who use the guns violently.

I have never argued for stricter gun legislation.

I have always been for a full ban of handguns and assault rifles. Change the Constitution if necessary. If the only thing that will work is to nuke the problem from orbit than that's what we have to set our sights on and set out to do it.

[fishercob]

[quote="dobrojim"][tweet]https://twitter.com/DLin71/status/611647662337691648[/tweet]

Not sure how to properly do this but Daniel Lin on twitter to state of SC

[quote]

[Zonkerbl]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/22/on-social-media-marylanders-wish-gov-larry-hogan-a-speedy-recovery/

Yikes, MD gov Hogan has cancer!

[insert Silver Spring Transportation Center joke here]

But seriously, get well soon.

[dobrojim]

Found great resonance with Sally Jenkins oped piece in Today's WaPost.

If you went to Germany and saw a war memorial with a Nazi flag flying over it, what would you think of those people? You might think they were unrepentant. You might think they were in a lingering state of denial about their national atrocities. The Confederate battle flag is an American swastika, the relic of traitors and totalitarians, symbol of a brutal regime, not a republic. The Confederacy was treason in defense of a still deeper crime against humanity: slavery. If weaklings find racial hatred to be a romantic expression of American strength and purity, make no mistake that it begins by unwinding a red thread from that flag.

All these folks that for so long have defended displays of the confederate battle flag on the
basis of "heritage" have been indulging themselves in a heaping dose of rationalization.
I understand why they would want to believe that but history is what it is, the south
seceded because they were threatened by the possibility that slavery would be forcibly
ended.

[Zonkerbl]

Found great resonance with Sally Jenkins oped piece in Today's WaPost.

If you went to Germany and saw a war memorial with a Nazi flag flying over it, what would you think of those people? You might think they were unrepentant. You might think they were in a lingering state of denial about their national atrocities. The Confederate battle flag is an American swastika, the relic of traitors and totalitarians, symbol of a brutal regime, not a republic. The Confederacy was treason in defense of a still deeper crime against humanity: slavery. If weaklings find racial hatred to be a romantic expression of American strength and purity, make no mistake that it begins by unwinding a red thread from that flag.

All these folks that for so long have defended displays of the confederate battle flag on the
basis of "heritage" have been indulging themselves in a heaping dose of rationalization.
I understand why they would want to believe that but history is what it is, the south
seceded because they were threatened by the possibility that slavery would be forcibly
ended.

Bah, that's just a red herring. Keep your flag and strike down the second amendment, that would be better.

[Spence]

My favorite Southern flag:

[Zonkerbl]

My favorite Southern flag:

Harsh.

[Spence]

Nah, THIS was harsh:

[fishercob]

Nah, THIS was harsh:

SPENCEMIRE!

[Wizardspride]

I still would like to see evidence that stricter gun laws reduce crime. Currently, the poster child for gun control is the city of Chicago, one of the most crime-riddled cities in the nation.

Also, the Charleston shooter obtained his gun illegally. Reports are he either stole it from his mother, or his father give it to him for his birthday. Either is a violation of law. As usual, gun control laws only work on law abiding citizens. It is the law breakers who use the guns violently.

Nope.

Bought it legally.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting/charleston-church-gunman-dylann-roof-bought-pistol-locally-officials-n380341

Dylann Roof bought the semiautomatic handgun he used in last week's church shooting at a gun store 25 miles from his home, according to officials familiar with the sale.

Law enforcement officials say the transaction was entirely legal, despite a pending drug charge.

[Spence]

As usual, the scandal in America isn't over what's illegal, but what is perfectly legal, but should not be.

[Zonkerbl]

Huh, the WaPo says he bought it from his father:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/18/the-legal-loophole-that-allowed-dylann-roof-to-get-a-gun/?wpisrc=nl_govbeat&wpmm=1

[fishercob]

I still would like to see evidence that stricter gun laws reduce crime. Currently, the poster child for gun control is the city of Chicago, one of the most crime-riddled cities in the nation.

Also, the Charleston shooter obtained his gun illegally. Reports are he either stole it from his mother, or his father give it to him for his birthday. Either is a violation of law. As usual, gun control laws only work on law abiding citizens. It is the law breakers who use the guns violently.

Nope.

Bought it legally.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting/charleston-church-gunman-dylann-roof-bought-pistol-locally-officials-n380341

Dylann Roof bought the semiautomatic handgun he used in last week's church shooting at a gun store 25 miles from his home, according to officials familiar with the sale.

Law enforcement officials say the transaction was entirely legal, despite a pending drug charge.

I'm all for gun control in theory. I think the second amendment is as outdated as the third amendment and if the framers had any inclination that gun technology would grow as it has, we'd never be in the mess that we are today. If I could I could nap my fingers and make us a gunless society, I would.

But I'm also a pragmatist. I think that Induveca and others are right -- the horse is out of the barn. There are so many guns out there right now that curbing (or even eliminating) access to new guns will only do so much -- if anything at all.

I also believe that if congress were to pass some sort of comprehensive gun ban (would never happen, but humor the hypothetical), people wouldn't turn in their now-illegal guns; trying to seize them would be bloody and disastrous. So unless the government is willing to go to literally war to get rid of guns, we are stuck with a society with lots of them.

The question then becomes, how can we get people to use them less? I think the answer has something to do with a robust economy and a strong middle class.