I suck, I suck, I suck, and this is totally going to get modded off-top and I completely deserve it.
It's your quote. The phrase is "for all intents and purposes". I'm not picking on you. I'm a jackass, but I'm not picking on you. I just see this all the time and I try and I try, but my inner grammar Nazi is forcing me to finally say something.
I am sorry to tell you this guys but, you (USA) have lost the war against terrorism.
Don't you understand the situation? How could they know that the boy hadn't joined the Al Qaeda Youth Group and created his metal detector to find coins to help fund further terrorist attacks?
The obvious solution is, after making sure there are no explosives on any would-be passenger, to take them into a room and shoot them to prevent anyone from finding out the procedure. This will obviously stop terrorism in its tracks. Safety first and foremost, right? The government had better damn well protect me, cause I'm scared.
I agree with you. Well, I suppose it depends on intent.
People in previous posts have used the phrase "track him down", as if it takes a lot of effort. Really? And is it really uncommon for an annoyed admin to take a quick look just to see "where the hell is this guy from?" And if he looked at it to see if someone was posting inappropriately, so what? If this teacher had worked in a store or a restaurant, I was a delivery driver delivering to that business, and he was a jackass and it bothered me, is it inappropriate for me to complain to the manager? If he was outside by the dumpster, having a smoke, and he started making lewd comments toward a woman walking by and for some reason I didn't knock his block off for it, would it be inappropriate to walk inside and ask to speak to the manager? What makes this any different?
Maybe someone has a good answer for that last question. I'm a little torn about it, myself. I just think that all this backlash against Greenbaum is reactionary. This sort of behavior from a school or government employee while on the job and using work computers is something worth complaining about.
And if you see that this is coming from a school, are you going to automatically assume it's the staff? Frankly, I'd find it much more likely and safe to assume that it's some smartass student. And if so, informing the school makes a lot more sense, right?
As far as banning the IP - do you really want to deny access to an entire school for the actions of one individual? If you did, what would happen? Likely, someone would eventually notice, inform the administrator or whatever techie the school has (I would hope they'd have one) and the techie would contact the website, asking why they were banned. I might be wrong on this, but I think the website maintainers would be assholes if they refused to say and nattered on about "protecting the rights of the poster." And I don't see any rights violated. Am I wrong? What rights you have at any given website is entirely up to the website unless it's illegal, and controlling content on your site is not illegal.
This, to me, is where our watered down version of capitalism fails. Now, I'm a capitalist, but I'm not one of these fanatics who call socialism evil. Socialism works if done correctly and capitalism works if done correctly. To admit the biggest failings of both systems, socialist economies tend to be too focused on a limited number of industries which might make it more difficult to withstand tough economic times, while capitalist economies tend to spread too thin among all manner of industry, perhaps creating problems with quality specializations and therefore affecting the overall view of products from those companies.
However, as I said, they both have their place. And they're not mutually exclusive. You can have both in balance or in moderation.
Anyway, pardon me for digressing. Going back to my original point, our version of capitalism in the US is corrupt, plain and simple. And it's not because of over-regulation. Regulation can indeed stifle competition, but it can also encourage it. And this is perpetuated by both major parties. This is a subject where we are firmly entrenched on the Right. There are Democrats who speak out for moderation, but they aren't exactly vehement about it and most of them aren't generally willing to crusade for it.
However - and this is coming from a very unabashed liberal - our "Right" actually fails to achieve or even try to achieve the traditional outlook on economy. The supposed champion of capitalism in this country, the Republican party, has very little interest in promoting true capitalism. On the contrary, they regulate it more than the Democrats do.
Our legislation and tax practices are heavily stacked against the small businessman in favor of the corporations. This is deliberate and our government has every reason to continue this trend, particularly because the poor and the middle class show no interest in challenging it.
Think of this: an entrepreneur might open a small business in a poor area. The owner is local, the employees are local and the business is tailored to the needs of that community. The money made generally stays within that area and if the business is successful, ultimately proves to be a great benefit for the other members of that community. At the same time, it is greatly in the owner's best interest to deal honestly and provide quality service and goods. They simply cannot afford to screw up. And yet, these businesses are the most common targets of the IRS and local agencies like the various health departments. It makes sense for them to. The big businesses not only can hire professional accountants to keep everything kosher, they can keep lawyers on hand to help them cover their butts when the tax laws become inconvenient. The small businessman is prone to mistakes. He or she must do everything themselves unless they have a family member who can figure it out. The health department can find all sorts of reasons to fine a small business. A small business in the food industry can have an industrial sink that's an inch too narrow according to arbitrary city or state guidelines and not only receives a fine, but is given a short amount of time to remedy the situation before the inspector returns and gives them another fine.
But the small businessmen are a feisty bunch. They'll fight through all of this and, with luck and struggle, make it to the point where they can consider making a small profit. The economy of the neighborhood inches up. More potential small businessmen are encouraged to give it a try. The local economy seems on its way to a small renaissance.
And this is what Wal-Mart and McDonald's have been watching and waiting for. Up pops the Megalomart to take advantage of a slightly more affluent community that is still just poor enough to go for the incredible bargains on low quality goods in order to keep making it. The myth that the politicians and pundits have drummed into our head is that these monoliths create more jobs, so the small businesses be
Ah, the old "spew logical fallacies and storm off in a huff" trick, eh? Such a classic.
You're calling a lot of people with no criminal histories in Texas sick individuals.
We sure love to paint with a broad brush, don't we?
You do seem to. However "a lot of people" is hardly overgeneralizing.
There's talk and there's doing. As I said most of those people are armchair internet warriors. Most human beings have a moral compass that will not allow them to commit murder. I don't know why you insist on denying this fact.
I remember reading some critique about cardboard cutout depictions of villains in fiction or something like that. I'll paraphrase as I don't remember the exact quote: you can't have him going around pulling the wings off of butterflies just because he's eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil. Your worldview is so simplistic as to be naive. When someone believes they are right about something, regardless of what it is, they adjust their morals to it. I'm not a complete moral relativist, but you can't count every member of a primitive culture that sacrifices virgins to the volcano as "bad people". You can't tell me that every Spartan, who believed in throwing less than perfect children to the wolves, was a sick person. It's completely naive.
Those as in plural? You've known multiple people who have shot someone and felt no remorse at all? Sorry, but I'm gonna call bullshit on that one. If you are actually telling the truth then I'd suggest that you find a new group of people to associate with because the people you are associating with now are a bunch of sick motherfuckers.
Again, if it doesn't fit your narrow world view, it can't be true. I've known many police officers, war veterans, family convenience store owners and plain good ol' boys. I disagree with their attitude about guns and shooting people, but I refuse to listen to someone say that they are bad people. And this isn't to say that some of them did not express regret or at least some sort of trauma from the first (or only) time they did it, but it ain't the rule. Most consider it a part of life, plain and simple. And people with guns talk about how if they feel threatened they'll shoot first and ask questions later. And even if this is bravado, first they psyche themselves up by thinking about it, and then when fear hits and it's fight or flight, morals are the last things on one's mind.
Our culture does not celebrate killing people for no reason while feeling no remorse over it.
No, we celebrate killing people for a reason while feeling no remorse over it. The problem is that "I thought it was an intruder" is a perfectly acceptable reason. As is "I thought he was following me."
I think we are done here. You have a good evening now.
Usually, I get no satisfaction from someone simply realizing they have no point and giving up, but frankly, I've had to come back to this thread nearly all damn day and I'm tired.
Read this carefully, please. I don't mind responding to arguments, but repeating myself when it's right there for you to read is good for no one.
The subject of guns came up in a post by commodore_64_love that stated this:
It's easier to outlaw gadgets than to admit you're wrong.
That's why, thanks to recent laws, only criminals carry guns. Pretty soon only criminals will have webcameras or RFID sniffers.
Note the implication here. If you can't see it, it is that people who support the outlawing of guns are doing it because they don't want to admit that they're wrong. It doesn't make sense, but there it is. There's also the FUD about "if you outlaw A, only outlaws will have A", but that's beyond our scope right now as the gun topic took off from there. Are you following me so far? I hope so.
A couple more comments deepened the thread until Shakrai stated:
The rest of us poor slobs don't have the right to defend ourselves if we are unlucky enough to live in a part of the country run by the anti-gun zealots.
This was my invitation to join. The conversation up to this point had little interesting to say and the usual nonthink was the content, so I was just passing it up until this point. Shakrai did at this point mention the 2nd amendment:
This will eventually change when the 2nd amendment is incorporated against the states but it doesn't change the fact that right now you effectively have no right to keep and bear arms if you live in the wrong part of the country.
As you can see, it was brought up, but it wasn't the whole of the subject. You can see that, right? So I entered the conversation. As I've said, I'm ambivalent about supporting legislation against guns for the reasons I have stated, but I am also personally very against them for what I believe are well thought out reasons. Therefore, that is how I approached it. After my own mention of the second amendment, I added this:
To be honest, I'm actually ambivalent about this issue. Guns are cowardly, but putting up with danger from gun nuts may just be part of the price we pay for freedom. True, there are other countries that provide freedom (sometimes beyond what's offered here in the US) without the epidemic of gun violence we face because guns other than those used for hunting are outlawed, but hey, we like living on the edge. Let's remember that the only lives worth protecting around here are those of the unborn. After that, you're on your own.
And I do completely support the right to have hunting rifles.
If you read this carefully, you will see how I was pointing out a)my distaste for guns and b)why the standard lines on the subject don't cut it. I chose to amend it at the end with what I consider to be the exception. Do you see now? Please reread the next time.
Do you have any more interesting questions, or perhaps you have a point to make after all of this?
My apologies. I think I hit "reply" on the wrong post.
I'm not sure that it's that amateur reporters don't have the guile. I think that perhaps working for the big five (well, there used to be five corporations that owned all the major news sources, it might have shrunk by now) makes cynics out of the idealists that usually become reporters.
If you look at the National Big Media response to these outbreaks they don't report what the compaint is, they report the left wing response calling these people Nuts, Nazis, Nicely Dress, Right Wing, Frenzied.....
This is where I say that the mainstream media's bias has less to do with politics than corporate interests. I've heard conservatives complain about that and I can see their point. But at the same time, many of we liberals believe that they made it seem like more of an event than it actually was, i.e., giving it such exposure without mentioning the small turnouts it had. If both sides complain (which we often do), perhaps it points more toward bad decision making about the focus of reporting than bias. Maybe.
Why don't they report the same thing when it is Illegal Aliens protesting in LA, or anti-war protesters?
Maybe because people don't use such epithets in those situations. Well, having been a war protester, I was very aware of such things being said and reported by the mainstream media. Anyway, I don't think we can blame the media for that particular problem.
ALL I'm saying is lets stop pretending it isn't biased reporting, whether it is FOX or ABC/CBS/MSNBC/CNN or NPR
I agree to a point. It is all biased, but not necessarily right or left. MSNBC and NPR are certainly left biased and FOX is very much right biased, but I protest the others being compared to FOX. MSNBC and NPR don't pretend to be unbiased. FOX's entire marketing scheme is that they have none. And it's blatant, but people insist to me that they're the only honest news source. I really don't understand the thinking behind that. But then, they're continuously met with "fair and balanced", which is a joke, as is the "No Spin Zone". None of the other news sources you mentioned natter on so much about how unbiased they supposedly are and none but perhaps MSNBC and NPR are even close to being as heavily steeped in bias. And the liberals I know have no problems admitting the bias in the two networks I mentioned. They (we) are aware of it and would probably be angry if they constantly made such claims. I'm sure someone at some point claimed it, but they know better than to keep it up. I hope.
As for the others, as I keep saying, their bias is greed. That's it. That's their only concern. The board of directors have a hell of a lot more say than any individual reporter and they don't care one whit about political bias. Well, that's not quite true. They certainly have personal opinions (and corporate leaders aren't quite known for their enthusiastic support of liberals - and for good reason), but when it comes to business, they know it's in their interests to avoid visible bias. People don't care that the abuses and fraud committed by the parent companies get no airtime. They only care about what the liberals said or what the conservatives said. And it's good for the politicians, as well, so don't expect them to do anything about it. The corrupt members of our government (and I don't put that label on every member of government, whatever party they belong to) would rather you focus on political differences than their actions as leaders.
Left Leaning seems to like Government interference in everyone lives but their own, they are just too stupid to realize that is impossible.
I could call this a lie, but the sad part is that I know you believe it. And it's probably pointless to correct you, but I will anyway. Banging my head against walls seems to help my headaches, anyway.
You've summed my sentiments very nicely. This is the source of my ambivalence about gun laws. I do think it's possible to tie the right to keep and bear arms to militias and even think that was the original intention, but I see general acceptance of that being as unlikely as a new amendment.
My whole point in getting involved in this subject (which has gone on longer than I expected and probably longer than any other comment thread for this news item) is that when someone brings it up, it starts out and inevitably is followed with a lot of logical fallacies and outright dismissal of anyone who disagrees as being some unpatriotic nut. I don't think it's gone that far, but it's gone far enough. Yeah, I've used some harsh language and probably I shouldn't have, as I expected arrogance in the first place. But when someone shows teeth, I have a habit of showing mine.
Look, it's not impossible to sway me. And I said I'm ambivalent about it. There are a few responses that have made me think a bit and I appreciated the intelligence behind the thoughts. However, I am still not completely swayed. And I'm unlikely to be because my points are generally responded to with standard replies that I've heard before.
Anyway, I'll keep up with this as long as it goes on. I've enjoyed the discussion at some points. And it helps to sharpen my points when it doesn't give me pause.
If you think that outlawing guns would prevent criminals from obtaining them you haven't studied black market theory or American history very well.
Check your own history books: at no time have guns been illegal or frowned upon much in American history. And if you think outlawing guns wouldn't put a severe cramp in the style of criminals who wanted guns, you're completely ignoring the experiences of countries in Europe that have completely outlawed guns but for hunting which is very regulated. The standard line about criminals easily obtaining guns while the rest of us can't get them has no basis in reality - or at least no precedence on which to base it and no convincing arguments (that I've heard).
It takes a particularly sick sort of individual to be able to do that and I'm not convinced that such an individual would be deterred from using violence to achieve his means just because he can't get his hands on a gun.
You're calling a lot of people with no criminal histories in Texas sick individuals.
Which of course he would be able to anyway, regardless of how much gun control you manage to pass.
FUD. Give me some kind of data. Paranoia doesn't do it for me.
How many people do you really know that feel "entitled" to shoot somewhere? I don't want to shoot anybody. I've seen first hand what taking a human life does to you. Someone I know was placed in a "kill or be killed" situation and had to defend herself with deadly force. It took her more than five years to get over the fact that she had taken a human life -- even though she knows in her gut that it was her or him. She still has nightmares about it.
I'm not sure how many Texans (or even sometimes Southerners in general), but there are a lot of people who talk like they're itching for it. You might call it bravado, but I don't buy it because I've known those who have shot someone and there was no remorse at all. Not, as you suggest, because they are bad people, but because that's our culture. Going back to hunting, there are many people who feel about shooting deer what you feel about shooting people. Does that make hunters bad people?
What you're saying makes sense (though I can't believe I'm seriously talking about the idea of allowing individuals to have nukes). However, the standard argument that pro-gun people make is that "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." By such logic, what kind of Orwellian regulation would be needed to guarantee that proper procedure is always followed? (On the other hand, the fact that criminals don't generally have the other weapons I mentioned kind of belies the point of the argument that not allowing it only promotes unfair advantage to criminals.)
The thing is that any kind of regulation (as the NRA points out) would be infringing on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", which the 2nd amendment says not to do. After all, if someone does not obey the regulations, they must give up their nukes, ergo losing their "right", which shall not be infringed. So if we're to be literal, no limits on the kinds of weapons kept and carried, no regulations on them. If I'm in danger of being shot for no reason, why shouldn't I be in danger of being blown up for no reason? Same result. Besides, maybe they can pry my nukes from my cold, dead hands.
The point here is that gun violence is limited to the ghetto and is not indicative of the general level of violence in the country.
Limited to the ghetto? I'd like to live where you live.
So why the comment about hunting?
We're talking about guns. Guns used for hunting are... guns. I'm saying I have no problem with them. The second amendment came up because of the subject, but the subject is guns, not the second amendment.
Yes, like all that raping, breaking into houses and frisking of wives that happens all over Europe where guns are banned. Once again the paranoia.
If we ever lose our freedom, it won't be because of some police state, but from the votes of uninformed citizens, whose numbers seem to swell every year. But that's neither here nor there.
Stay away from gang bangers and all that gun violence goes away.
Sometimes the gang bangers come to you. And for some people who can't afford better neighborhoods, there's no choice. And really, I don't see how "stay out of this part of town" is a real solution to the dangers.
Gun nuts are pretty safe - the level of violence outside of black on black situations is actually pretty low.
In a point related to your previous statement, I don't live in a bad neighborhood, so the only people I have to worry about are the others I mentioned. Such as the man who shot two children through his door when their father decided to let them trick or treat at one last house. One fortunately lived. Of course, it was found to be a no-fault death, because, of course, life isn't as important to our legal system as defending yourself from trick-or-treating elementary school children.
The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, it's there for defense against foreign powers and armed insurrection.
I know what the 2nd amendment is about and yet most gun owners talk about the need to defend their families from criminals (for instance, trick-or-treating elementary school students). People may talk about Montana being full of nuts, but to be honest, I respect those people because they do gather in militias for the very reasons you stated. Paranoid or not, they're keeping the spirit of the 2nd amendment.
You haven't been paying attention to recent Supreme Court precedent [wikipedia.org] have you? That argument doesn't fly any longer. You'll have to find another one.
No, I don't. The Supreme Court can't take the logic out of an argument, nor are their precedents always the final word. People make too big of a deal about precedents. Judges feel free to ignore them all the time. Even the decisions of the Supreme Court can be ignored and it'll wind up right back in the Supreme Court, which will sometimes reverse the decision based on recent events or even a change in the makeup of that ultimate judicial body. If you think the issue is finished, you really ought to read up.
We do have a violence problem in this country. Why are you trying to link it to firearms?
The usual response to this is that the violence isn't linked to firearms, but the outcome of that violence is. After all, without guns, you have little to no gun violence. I'd rather someone attack me with a knife or baseball bat than a gun. However, I don't believe that argument goes far enough. I think that indeed, guns do lead to higher levels of violence. It's psychological. The bigger the weapon in your hand, the more powerful you feel. At the same time, a gun makes it less personal and effortless. You don't have to get close to someone, you don't have to look someone in the eyes, and you don't have to watch them die.
Anyway, as I said earlier, I'm ambivalent about it. I think the Constitution would need an amendment to finally take care of it and I don't see that happening any time soon. Until it does, I figure if I'm going to support the Constitution, I should support all of it. But no one's going to convince me that it's a good idea. Frankly, I worry about law abiding citizens who feel entitled to shoot anyone for the slightest instance of paranoia as much as I do the criminals. At least I can stay out of the neighborhoods where the criminals usually are.
Well, if we're to make no distinctions, the term "arms" no longer refers to just guns. There's also pipe bombs, dirty bombs, TNT, nuclear bombs, tanks (why not?), bazookas, rocket launchers, BFG 9000s (pardon), swords, switchblades, Molotov cocktails, etc.
I suppose I should expect to hear something like, "that's different!" Okay, why? What "condition" precludes them?
Wow. You're paid to write POS software? You ought to look into getting a job at Microsoft. They write POS software all the time and I'm sure they appreciate people with experience.
The point is that guns are available to criminals. Which is fine if you like guns, because as long as criminals have them, it supports the argument that you should be able to carry a gun around.
Being in Texas, I'm preparing myself for the day that I'm walking along at night, someone's walking in front of me and gets paranoid, and I wind up bleeding on the ground. Interestingly, if you're used to hearing about such cases in Texas, it'll be considered perfectly within their rights and they'll walk away from it without even being arrested.
Slashdot Mirror
I suck, I suck, I suck, and this is totally going to get modded off-top and I completely deserve it.
It's your quote. The phrase is "for all intents and purposes". I'm not picking on you. I'm a jackass, but I'm not picking on you. I just see this all the time and I try and I try, but my inner grammar Nazi is forcing me to finally say something.
I am sorry to tell you this guys but, you (USA) have lost the war against terrorism.
Don't you understand the situation? How could they know that the boy hadn't joined the Al Qaeda Youth Group and created his metal detector to find coins to help fund further terrorist attacks?
Think, people!
The obvious solution is, after making sure there are no explosives on any would-be passenger, to take them into a room and shoot them to prevent anyone from finding out the procedure. This will obviously stop terrorism in its tracks. Safety first and foremost, right? The government had better damn well protect me, cause I'm scared.
I agree with you. Well, I suppose it depends on intent. People in previous posts have used the phrase "track him down", as if it takes a lot of effort. Really? And is it really uncommon for an annoyed admin to take a quick look just to see "where the hell is this guy from?" And if he looked at it to see if someone was posting inappropriately, so what? If this teacher had worked in a store or a restaurant, I was a delivery driver delivering to that business, and he was a jackass and it bothered me, is it inappropriate for me to complain to the manager? If he was outside by the dumpster, having a smoke, and he started making lewd comments toward a woman walking by and for some reason I didn't knock his block off for it, would it be inappropriate to walk inside and ask to speak to the manager? What makes this any different? Maybe someone has a good answer for that last question. I'm a little torn about it, myself. I just think that all this backlash against Greenbaum is reactionary. This sort of behavior from a school or government employee while on the job and using work computers is something worth complaining about. And if you see that this is coming from a school, are you going to automatically assume it's the staff? Frankly, I'd find it much more likely and safe to assume that it's some smartass student. And if so, informing the school makes a lot more sense, right? As far as banning the IP - do you really want to deny access to an entire school for the actions of one individual? If you did, what would happen? Likely, someone would eventually notice, inform the administrator or whatever techie the school has (I would hope they'd have one) and the techie would contact the website, asking why they were banned. I might be wrong on this, but I think the website maintainers would be assholes if they refused to say and nattered on about "protecting the rights of the poster." And I don't see any rights violated. Am I wrong? What rights you have at any given website is entirely up to the website unless it's illegal, and controlling content on your site is not illegal.
Something I forgot to mention: I recently heard a quote that made me think.
A banker can rob a farmer and no one pays attention. But if the farmer tries to rob a banker, dozens of police are immediately on the scene.
This, to me, is where our watered down version of capitalism fails. Now, I'm a capitalist, but I'm not one of these fanatics who call socialism evil. Socialism works if done correctly and capitalism works if done correctly. To admit the biggest failings of both systems, socialist economies tend to be too focused on a limited number of industries which might make it more difficult to withstand tough economic times, while capitalist economies tend to spread too thin among all manner of industry, perhaps creating problems with quality specializations and therefore affecting the overall view of products from those companies.
However, as I said, they both have their place. And they're not mutually exclusive. You can have both in balance or in moderation.
Anyway, pardon me for digressing. Going back to my original point, our version of capitalism in the US is corrupt, plain and simple. And it's not because of over-regulation. Regulation can indeed stifle competition, but it can also encourage it. And this is perpetuated by both major parties. This is a subject where we are firmly entrenched on the Right. There are Democrats who speak out for moderation, but they aren't exactly vehement about it and most of them aren't generally willing to crusade for it.
However - and this is coming from a very unabashed liberal - our "Right" actually fails to achieve or even try to achieve the traditional outlook on economy. The supposed champion of capitalism in this country, the Republican party, has very little interest in promoting true capitalism. On the contrary, they regulate it more than the Democrats do.
Our legislation and tax practices are heavily stacked against the small businessman in favor of the corporations. This is deliberate and our government has every reason to continue this trend, particularly because the poor and the middle class show no interest in challenging it.
Think of this: an entrepreneur might open a small business in a poor area. The owner is local, the employees are local and the business is tailored to the needs of that community. The money made generally stays within that area and if the business is successful, ultimately proves to be a great benefit for the other members of that community. At the same time, it is greatly in the owner's best interest to deal honestly and provide quality service and goods. They simply cannot afford to screw up. And yet, these businesses are the most common targets of the IRS and local agencies like the various health departments. It makes sense for them to. The big businesses not only can hire professional accountants to keep everything kosher, they can keep lawyers on hand to help them cover their butts when the tax laws become inconvenient. The small businessman is prone to mistakes. He or she must do everything themselves unless they have a family member who can figure it out. The health department can find all sorts of reasons to fine a small business. A small business in the food industry can have an industrial sink that's an inch too narrow according to arbitrary city or state guidelines and not only receives a fine, but is given a short amount of time to remedy the situation before the inspector returns and gives them another fine.
But the small businessmen are a feisty bunch. They'll fight through all of this and, with luck and struggle, make it to the point where they can consider making a small profit. The economy of the neighborhood inches up. More potential small businessmen are encouraged to give it a try. The local economy seems on its way to a small renaissance.
And this is what Wal-Mart and McDonald's have been watching and waiting for. Up pops the Megalomart to take advantage of a slightly more affluent community that is still just poor enough to go for the incredible bargains on low quality goods in order to keep making it. The myth that the politicians and pundits have drummed into our head is that these monoliths create more jobs, so the small businesses be
Uh, guy? Maybe you and Dubya have no reading comprehension, but he just said the Twilight Zone's focus wasn't science fiction.
A... a Brillo pad?
Why do you hate hiking boots?
Now, when I come home drunk, I'll no longer wind up peeing in the kitchen sink and trying to make coffee in the toilet.
You're calling a lot of people with no criminal histories in Texas sick individuals.
We sure love to paint with a broad brush, don't we?
You do seem to. However "a lot of people" is hardly overgeneralizing.
There's talk and there's doing. As I said most of those people are armchair internet warriors. Most human beings have a moral compass that will not allow them to commit murder. I don't know why you insist on denying this fact.
I remember reading some critique about cardboard cutout depictions of villains in fiction or something like that. I'll paraphrase as I don't remember the exact quote: you can't have him going around pulling the wings off of butterflies just because he's eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil. Your worldview is so simplistic as to be naive. When someone believes they are right about something, regardless of what it is, they adjust their morals to it. I'm not a complete moral relativist, but you can't count every member of a primitive culture that sacrifices virgins to the volcano as "bad people". You can't tell me that every Spartan, who believed in throwing less than perfect children to the wolves, was a sick person. It's completely naive.
Those as in plural? You've known multiple people who have shot someone and felt no remorse at all? Sorry, but I'm gonna call bullshit on that one. If you are actually telling the truth then I'd suggest that you find a new group of people to associate with because the people you are associating with now are a bunch of sick motherfuckers.
Again, if it doesn't fit your narrow world view, it can't be true. I've known many police officers, war veterans, family convenience store owners and plain good ol' boys. I disagree with their attitude about guns and shooting people, but I refuse to listen to someone say that they are bad people. And this isn't to say that some of them did not express regret or at least some sort of trauma from the first (or only) time they did it, but it ain't the rule. Most consider it a part of life, plain and simple. And people with guns talk about how if they feel threatened they'll shoot first and ask questions later. And even if this is bravado, first they psyche themselves up by thinking about it, and then when fear hits and it's fight or flight, morals are the last things on one's mind.
Our culture does not celebrate killing people for no reason while feeling no remorse over it.
No, we celebrate killing people for a reason while feeling no remorse over it. The problem is that "I thought it was an intruder" is a perfectly acceptable reason. As is "I thought he was following me."
I think we are done here. You have a good evening now.
Usually, I get no satisfaction from someone simply realizing they have no point and giving up, but frankly, I've had to come back to this thread nearly all damn day and I'm tired.
Have a good evening yourself.
The subject of guns came up in a post by commodore_64_love that stated this:
It's easier to outlaw gadgets than to admit you're wrong. That's why, thanks to recent laws, only criminals carry guns. Pretty soon only criminals will have webcameras or RFID sniffers.
Note the implication here. If you can't see it, it is that people who support the outlawing of guns are doing it because they don't want to admit that they're wrong. It doesn't make sense, but there it is. There's also the FUD about "if you outlaw A, only outlaws will have A", but that's beyond our scope right now as the gun topic took off from there. Are you following me so far? I hope so.
A couple more comments deepened the thread until Shakrai stated:
The rest of us poor slobs don't have the right to defend ourselves if we are unlucky enough to live in a part of the country run by the anti-gun zealots.
This was my invitation to join. The conversation up to this point had little interesting to say and the usual nonthink was the content, so I was just passing it up until this point. Shakrai did at this point mention the 2nd amendment:
This will eventually change when the 2nd amendment is incorporated against the states but it doesn't change the fact that right now you effectively have no right to keep and bear arms if you live in the wrong part of the country.
As you can see, it was brought up, but it wasn't the whole of the subject. You can see that, right? So I entered the conversation. As I've said, I'm ambivalent about supporting legislation against guns for the reasons I have stated, but I am also personally very against them for what I believe are well thought out reasons. Therefore, that is how I approached it. After my own mention of the second amendment, I added this:
To be honest, I'm actually ambivalent about this issue. Guns are cowardly, but putting up with danger from gun nuts may just be part of the price we pay for freedom. True, there are other countries that provide freedom (sometimes beyond what's offered here in the US) without the epidemic of gun violence we face because guns other than those used for hunting are outlawed, but hey, we like living on the edge. Let's remember that the only lives worth protecting around here are those of the unborn. After that, you're on your own.
And I do completely support the right to have hunting rifles.
If you read this carefully, you will see how I was pointing out a)my distaste for guns and b)why the standard lines on the subject don't cut it. I chose to amend it at the end with what I consider to be the exception. Do you see now? Please reread the next time.
Do you have any more interesting questions, or perhaps you have a point to make after all of this?
I'm not sure that it's that amateur reporters don't have the guile. I think that perhaps working for the big five (well, there used to be five corporations that owned all the major news sources, it might have shrunk by now) makes cynics out of the idealists that usually become reporters.
If you look at the National Big Media response to these outbreaks they don't report what the compaint is, they report the left wing response calling these people Nuts, Nazis, Nicely Dress, Right Wing, Frenzied .....
This is where I say that the mainstream media's bias has less to do with politics than corporate interests. I've heard conservatives complain about that and I can see their point. But at the same time, many of we liberals believe that they made it seem like more of an event than it actually was, i.e., giving it such exposure without mentioning the small turnouts it had. If both sides complain (which we often do), perhaps it points more toward bad decision making about the focus of reporting than bias. Maybe.
Why don't they report the same thing when it is Illegal Aliens protesting in LA, or anti-war protesters?
Maybe because people don't use such epithets in those situations. Well, having been a war protester, I was very aware of such things being said and reported by the mainstream media. Anyway, I don't think we can blame the media for that particular problem.
ALL I'm saying is lets stop pretending it isn't biased reporting, whether it is FOX or ABC/CBS/MSNBC/CNN or NPR
I agree to a point. It is all biased, but not necessarily right or left. MSNBC and NPR are certainly left biased and FOX is very much right biased, but I protest the others being compared to FOX. MSNBC and NPR don't pretend to be unbiased. FOX's entire marketing scheme is that they have none. And it's blatant, but people insist to me that they're the only honest news source. I really don't understand the thinking behind that. But then, they're continuously met with "fair and balanced", which is a joke, as is the "No Spin Zone". None of the other news sources you mentioned natter on so much about how unbiased they supposedly are and none but perhaps MSNBC and NPR are even close to being as heavily steeped in bias. And the liberals I know have no problems admitting the bias in the two networks I mentioned. They (we) are aware of it and would probably be angry if they constantly made such claims. I'm sure someone at some point claimed it, but they know better than to keep it up. I hope.
As for the others, as I keep saying, their bias is greed. That's it. That's their only concern. The board of directors have a hell of a lot more say than any individual reporter and they don't care one whit about political bias. Well, that's not quite true. They certainly have personal opinions (and corporate leaders aren't quite known for their enthusiastic support of liberals - and for good reason), but when it comes to business, they know it's in their interests to avoid visible bias. People don't care that the abuses and fraud committed by the parent companies get no airtime. They only care about what the liberals said or what the conservatives said. And it's good for the politicians, as well, so don't expect them to do anything about it. The corrupt members of our government (and I don't put that label on every member of government, whatever party they belong to) would rather you focus on political differences than their actions as leaders.
Left Leaning seems to like Government interference in everyone lives but their own, they are just too stupid to realize that is impossible.
I could call this a lie, but the sad part is that I know you believe it. And it's probably pointless to correct you, but I will anyway. Banging my head against walls seems to help my headaches, anyway.
You've summed my sentiments very nicely. This is the source of my ambivalence about gun laws. I do think it's possible to tie the right to keep and bear arms to militias and even think that was the original intention, but I see general acceptance of that being as unlikely as a new amendment.
My whole point in getting involved in this subject (which has gone on longer than I expected and probably longer than any other comment thread for this news item) is that when someone brings it up, it starts out and inevitably is followed with a lot of logical fallacies and outright dismissal of anyone who disagrees as being some unpatriotic nut. I don't think it's gone that far, but it's gone far enough. Yeah, I've used some harsh language and probably I shouldn't have, as I expected arrogance in the first place. But when someone shows teeth, I have a habit of showing mine.
Look, it's not impossible to sway me. And I said I'm ambivalent about it. There are a few responses that have made me think a bit and I appreciated the intelligence behind the thoughts. However, I am still not completely swayed. And I'm unlikely to be because my points are generally responded to with standard replies that I've heard before.
Anyway, I'll keep up with this as long as it goes on. I've enjoyed the discussion at some points. And it helps to sharpen my points when it doesn't give me pause.
If you think that outlawing guns would prevent criminals from obtaining them you haven't studied black market theory or American history very well.
Check your own history books: at no time have guns been illegal or frowned upon much in American history. And if you think outlawing guns wouldn't put a severe cramp in the style of criminals who wanted guns, you're completely ignoring the experiences of countries in Europe that have completely outlawed guns but for hunting which is very regulated. The standard line about criminals easily obtaining guns while the rest of us can't get them has no basis in reality - or at least no precedence on which to base it and no convincing arguments (that I've heard).
It takes a particularly sick sort of individual to be able to do that and I'm not convinced that such an individual would be deterred from using violence to achieve his means just because he can't get his hands on a gun.
You're calling a lot of people with no criminal histories in Texas sick individuals.
Which of course he would be able to anyway, regardless of how much gun control you manage to pass.
FUD. Give me some kind of data. Paranoia doesn't do it for me.
How many people do you really know that feel "entitled" to shoot somewhere? I don't want to shoot anybody. I've seen first hand what taking a human life does to you. Someone I know was placed in a "kill or be killed" situation and had to defend herself with deadly force. It took her more than five years to get over the fact that she had taken a human life -- even though she knows in her gut that it was her or him. She still has nightmares about it.
I'm not sure how many Texans (or even sometimes Southerners in general), but there are a lot of people who talk like they're itching for it. You might call it bravado, but I don't buy it because I've known those who have shot someone and there was no remorse at all. Not, as you suggest, because they are bad people, but because that's our culture. Going back to hunting, there are many people who feel about shooting deer what you feel about shooting people. Does that make hunters bad people?
What you're saying makes sense (though I can't believe I'm seriously talking about the idea of allowing individuals to have nukes). However, the standard argument that pro-gun people make is that "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." By such logic, what kind of Orwellian regulation would be needed to guarantee that proper procedure is always followed? (On the other hand, the fact that criminals don't generally have the other weapons I mentioned kind of belies the point of the argument that not allowing it only promotes unfair advantage to criminals.)
The thing is that any kind of regulation (as the NRA points out) would be infringing on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", which the 2nd amendment says not to do. After all, if someone does not obey the regulations, they must give up their nukes, ergo losing their "right", which shall not be infringed. So if we're to be literal, no limits on the kinds of weapons kept and carried, no regulations on them. If I'm in danger of being shot for no reason, why shouldn't I be in danger of being blown up for no reason? Same result. Besides, maybe they can pry my nukes from my cold, dead hands.
The point here is that gun violence is limited to the ghetto and is not indicative of the general level of violence in the country.
Limited to the ghetto? I'd like to live where you live.
So why the comment about hunting?
We're talking about guns. Guns used for hunting are... guns. I'm saying I have no problem with them. The second amendment came up because of the subject, but the subject is guns, not the second amendment.
And that has to do with what?
Yes, like all that raping, breaking into houses and frisking of wives that happens all over Europe where guns are banned. Once again the paranoia.
If we ever lose our freedom, it won't be because of some police state, but from the votes of uninformed citizens, whose numbers seem to swell every year. But that's neither here nor there.
And gods forbid a plane lands on your house where you're storing that nuke.
Stay away from gang bangers and all that gun violence goes away.
Sometimes the gang bangers come to you. And for some people who can't afford better neighborhoods, there's no choice. And really, I don't see how "stay out of this part of town" is a real solution to the dangers.
Gun nuts are pretty safe - the level of violence outside of black on black situations is actually pretty low.
In a point related to your previous statement, I don't live in a bad neighborhood, so the only people I have to worry about are the others I mentioned. Such as the man who shot two children through his door when their father decided to let them trick or treat at one last house. One fortunately lived. Of course, it was found to be a no-fault death, because, of course, life isn't as important to our legal system as defending yourself from trick-or-treating elementary school children.
The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, it's there for defense against foreign powers and armed insurrection.
I know what the 2nd amendment is about and yet most gun owners talk about the need to defend their families from criminals (for instance, trick-or-treating elementary school students). People may talk about Montana being full of nuts, but to be honest, I respect those people because they do gather in militias for the very reasons you stated. Paranoid or not, they're keeping the spirit of the 2nd amendment.
You haven't been paying attention to recent Supreme Court precedent [wikipedia.org] have you? That argument doesn't fly any longer. You'll have to find another one.
No, I don't. The Supreme Court can't take the logic out of an argument, nor are their precedents always the final word. People make too big of a deal about precedents. Judges feel free to ignore them all the time. Even the decisions of the Supreme Court can be ignored and it'll wind up right back in the Supreme Court, which will sometimes reverse the decision based on recent events or even a change in the makeup of that ultimate judicial body. If you think the issue is finished, you really ought to read up.
We do have a violence problem in this country. Why are you trying to link it to firearms?
The usual response to this is that the violence isn't linked to firearms, but the outcome of that violence is. After all, without guns, you have little to no gun violence. I'd rather someone attack me with a knife or baseball bat than a gun. However, I don't believe that argument goes far enough. I think that indeed, guns do lead to higher levels of violence. It's psychological. The bigger the weapon in your hand, the more powerful you feel. At the same time, a gun makes it less personal and effortless. You don't have to get close to someone, you don't have to look someone in the eyes, and you don't have to watch them die.
Anyway, as I said earlier, I'm ambivalent about it. I think the Constitution would need an amendment to finally take care of it and I don't see that happening any time soon. Until it does, I figure if I'm going to support the Constitution, I should support all of it. But no one's going to convince me that it's a good idea. Frankly, I worry about law abiding citizens who feel entitled to shoot anyone for the slightest instance of paranoia as much as I do the criminals. At least I can stay out of the neighborhoods where the criminals usually are.
Well, if we're to make no distinctions, the term "arms" no longer refers to just guns. There's also pipe bombs, dirty bombs, TNT, nuclear bombs, tanks (why not?), bazookas, rocket launchers, BFG 9000s (pardon), swords, switchblades, Molotov cocktails, etc.
I suppose I should expect to hear something like, "that's different!" Okay, why? What "condition" precludes them?
Wow. You're paid to write POS software? You ought to look into getting a job at Microsoft. They write POS software all the time and I'm sure they appreciate people with experience.
The point is that guns are available to criminals. Which is fine if you like guns, because as long as criminals have them, it supports the argument that you should be able to carry a gun around.
Being in Texas, I'm preparing myself for the day that I'm walking along at night, someone's walking in front of me and gets paranoid, and I wind up bleeding on the ground. Interestingly, if you're used to hearing about such cases in Texas, it'll be considered perfectly within their rights and they'll walk away from it without even being arrested.