Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Well genetics play a part,but overall it's pretty limited. Genetic predisposition towards X isn't a guarantee. You just can't abuse yourself in that respect and "Get away" with it as much as someone else might. Like sugar consumption when predisposed to diabetes.

 

[Dak]

http://bastiat.mises.org/2013/04/ill-bet-you-didnt-expect-this/

I noticed that bit in that article but I didn't get a chance to post it. Eventually the truth will be recognized as "Self evident".

 

[Dak]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/tech/innovation/orig-ideas-4-d-printing/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

MIT working on "4D printing".

 

[Einherjar86]

Adaptive matter. I dig it.

He didn't mention any applications for defense, but I have to imagine that if this technology is successful and viable, the military would be all over it.

 

[Dak]

Well the way I understand it, MIT may as well be a DARPA subsidiery. If that's the case, they already are.

 

[Dak]

I just want to point out that the gun/ammo buying spree prior to the 2009 coronation (yes I used that on purpose) and the 2013 coronation have most certainly been justified now, even as Obamadrones continue to assert that said behavior was pure "paranoia".

First it was "he never said he was going to do it". And the response was that his history and position appointments indicate an anti gun position. Then as the 2013 coronation neared, the cries were "He hasn't done anything in the last 4 years, why would you still think it's a possibility?". And of course the response was that now he doesn't have to worry about re-election. All paranoia right? And yet here we are, with the AWB back in the picture, Obama planning a circuit to push gun legislation including that and more. And yet it's still "paranoia".

 

[Einherjar86]

It is paranoia. When Obama declares martial law and extends his term, or declares himself eligible for a third term, then I'll concede that these fears weren't unjustified.

 

[Matt]

Holy shit, some useless watered-down loophole-filled legislation MIGHT pass. Better buy absurd quantities of guns/ammo/rations.

 

[AllShallFall]

Holy shit, some useless watered-down loophole-filled legislation MIGHT pass. Better buy absurd quantities of guns/ammo/rations.

Win

 

[Dak]

It is paranoia. When Obama declares martial law and extends his term, or declares himself eligible for a third term, then I'll concede that these fears weren't unjustified.

What was primarily being purchased? Weapons that would fall under the AWB. Purchasing them before another one is not paranoia, at a bare minimum it's smart business. Buy them before a new ban and they will be worth a fortune later.

Issues regarding a 3rd term or martial law are red herrings.

Holy shit, some useless watered-down loophole-filled legislation MIGHT pass. Better buy absurd quantities of guns/ammo/rations.

I guess anything short of a total gun ban/seizure can be called "full of loopholes". Kind of a pointless critique.

 

[Einherjar86]

What was primarily being purchased? Weapons that would fall under the AWB. Purchasing them before another one is not paranoia, at a bare minimum it's smart business. Buy them before a new ban and they will be worth a fortune later.

Issues regarding a 3rd term or martial law are red herrings.

But that isn't why people were buying them.

Also, I don't think the political issues are red herrings at all. People put so much blame on Obama, as though by doing this he has some plan to conquer America. After he leaves the White House, the next president can reverse these laws. There's nothing sedimented about them; if people truly want fewer gun restrictions, then vote in someone who will reverse them.

Now, the efficacy of that is certainly in question. But if there's difficulty in reversing these laws, then there's a deeper reason for it that cannot be blamed on Obama and his administration. Using him as the scapegoat is just misleading.

 

[Dak]

But that isn't why people were buying them.

But it is. I was just at a local dealer the other day and he was talking about that, that there's a significant amount of purchasers who are hoping for a new ban, so they can resell 9 of the 10 they purchased at a significant markup.

Also, I don't think the political issues are red herrings at all. People put so much blame on Obama, as though by doing this he has some plan to conquer America. After he leaves the White House, the next president can reverse these laws. There's nothing sedimented about them; if people truly want fewer gun restrictions, then vote in someone who will reverse them.

Now, the efficacy of that is certainly in question. But if there's difficulty in reversing these laws, then there's a deeper reason for it that cannot be blamed on Obama and his administration. Using him as the scapegoat is just misleading.

I agree, but that scapegoating is no different than all the reverse that went on under Bush re: wars/Patriot Act/etc. Obama has merely continued on with the same policies, and you barely hear a peep about it from the "usual suspects". The scapegoating is standard party politics.

Also, the President doesn't have the power to make these changes, it's in Congress where it's happening, and it's going to take voting a whole lot of new people in to change anything back.

 

[Einherjar86]

But it is. I was just at a local dealer the other day and he was talking about that, that there's a significant amount of purchasers who are hoping for a new ban, so they can resell 9 of the 10 they purchased at a significant markup.

One experience doesn't constitute a major reason. Many people bought guns because they were paranoid about more ridiculous notions.

Furthermore, as far as the perceived increased value of guns go, it will only prove true if there is an underlying paranoia that the government is "out to get us." The fear of government and the financial gain go hand in hand.

I agree, but that scapegoating is no different than all the reverse that went on under Bush re: wars/Patriot Act/etc. Obama has merely continued on with the same policies, and you barely hear a peep about it from the "usual suspects". The scapegoating is standard party politics.

Also, the President doesn't have the power to make these changes, it's in Congress where it's happening, and it's going to take voting a whole lot of new people in to change anything back.

Not technically, but presidents can put forth bills. That's a fair point about the scapegoating under Bush; but you specifically mentioned Obamadrones, I think; so I was referencing that.

 

[Dak]

One experience doesn't constitute a major reason. Many people bought guns because they were paranoid about more ridiculous notions.

Furthermore, as far as the perceived increased value of guns go, it will only prove true if there is an underlying paranoia that the government is "out to get us." The fear of government and the financial gain go hand in hand.

Of course that was one anecdote. They haven't exactly been doing studies on this.

There was already an AWB before. Prices were way up for banned weapons during that time (decrease supply, higher prices, standard micro economics). Expecting a repeat of that scenario isn't even remotely paranoid.

Not technically, but presidents can put forth bills. That's a fair point about the scapegoating under Bush; but you specifically mentioned Obamadrones, I think; so I was referencing that.

I would think that on this forum, I of all people, at this point, shouldn't have to qualify any negative remarks about Obama/supporters by making note that I have the same opinion of their counterparts in the Republican wing.

 

[Einherjar86]

Of course that was one anecdote. They haven't exactly been doing studies on this.

There was already an AWB before. Prices were way up for banned weapons during that time (decrease supply, higher prices, standard micro economics). Expecting a repeat of that scenario isn't even remotely paranoid.

Why isn't it?? What is the underlying reason for the increase in demand? Obviously people want to hunt; but they also want to protect themselves, and a huge part of this is the mentality that tighter gun laws will result in some violence-stricken dystopian scenario. It's paranoia.

I would think that on this forum, I of all people, at this point, shouldn't have to qualify any negative remarks about Obama/supporters by making note that I have the same opinion of their counterparts in the Republican wing.

Gotta be careful of what you say, brah.

 

[Dak]

Why isn't it?? What is the underlying reason for the increase in demand? Obviously people want to hunt; but they also want to protect themselves, and a huge part of this is the mentality that tighter gun laws will result in some violence-stricken dystopian scenario. It's paranoia.

The DHS is buying truckloads of ammo and APCs. Why is it paranoia if a person does it but not if government does it?

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't always know what the abbreviations you use mean. Now, I may need clarification on this; but I was led to believe that you were talking about private dealers being excited about a ban because it would result in an increase in price. As far as I can tell, it doesn't make any difference whether it's private individuals or the government buying them. Bans increase paranoia because people seem to associate it with disorder and increased violence from black market weapons; so they want to make sure they can protect themselves in the future. The value of guns doesn't miraculously increase simply because there's a potential ban on them. The increase in price only works if the guns are seriously in demand, and they're only seriously in demand because people believe they might not be able to protect themselves in the future.

 

[Dak]

I don't always know what the abbreviations you use mean. Now, I may need clarification on this; but I was led to believe that you were talking about private dealers being excited about a ban because it would result in an increase in price. As far as I can tell, it doesn't make any difference whether it's private individuals or the government buying them. Bans increase paranoia because people seem to associate it with disorder and increased violence from black market weapons; so they want to make sure they can protect themselves in the future. The value of guns doesn't miraculously increase simply because there's a potential ban on them. The increase in price only works if the guns are seriously in demand, and they're only seriously in demand because people believe they might not be able to protect themselves in the future.

I'm not saying that's not part of it, but anytime there's a ban, or supply cut off, of anything that was already remotely in demand, it raises demand purely because of that fact. Artificial Scarcity.

DHS: Department of Homeland Security.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not saying that's not part of it, but anytime there's a ban, or supply cut off, of anything that was already remotely in demand, it raises demand purely because of that fact. Artificial Scarcity.

DHS: Department of Homeland Security.

I don't see how artificial scarcity, in and of itself, causes value to rise. There must be a reason why the scarcity affects people, whether it's entirely ideological or not (i.e. whether people actually believe that a ban on some form of weapons equals a hostile takeover of individual liberties). "Artificial" it may be, but simple scarcity causes no inflation in value. Things must still be in demand for some reason, unless there are so few of them in circulation that a ridiculous increase in price doesn't make much difference.

 

[Dak]

I don't see how artificial scarcity, in and of itself, causes value to rise. There must be a reason why the scarcity affects people, whether it's entirely ideological or not (i.e. whether people actually believe that a ban on some form of weapons equals a hostile takeover of individual liberties). "Artificial" it may be, but simple scarcity causes no inflation in value. Things must still be in demand for some reason, unless there are so few of them in circulation that a ridiculous increase in price doesn't make much difference.

It's basic supply and demand. When demand exceeds supply, whether due to increased demand or decreased supply (and whether that decrease is due to restrictions or an actual decrease of the supply is irrelevant), prices rise until demand is sufficiently reduced.