I'd agree only if the improvement is its elimination. Government run education is virtually guaranteed to end up being used for indoctrination of government approved ideas and thoughts. It seems these days the schools are far more about teaching garbage than they are about teaching people critical thinking skills and logic. Ignorant unthinking people are exactly what government needs to succeed. But, since you seem to be writing as a statist, I don't suppose you'd complain about that.
Wow. You Fail. There is absolutely no argument or chain of logic, pseudo or otherwise, that can reach the conclusion that Rape and Murder laws represent restrictions of Freedom. You are never "free" to murder or rape or initiate force against the person of another against their will. That precept is the very foundation of true Freedom.
At the same time you cannot simply say that education in the manner you desire is the only true way for a free society to function. I can know jack-squat about biology and evolution and still function just fine in a free society. All that is required for that purpose is critical thinking skills and a solid knowledge of history and the system of government in use. Whether such skills will lead one to reject or accept a different world view is not the issue. I do not have to be taught a government approved and sanctioned set of beliefs and knowledge to be able to make decisions as to who to vote for or how to behave in civil society.
Are you going to argue that a sufficiently motivated government or segment of the population would never use the iron fist of government education to influence the belief structures or level of education to the degree necessary to promote and virtually guarantee a certain outcome at the polling place and in society at large? If you are going to make that argument, then you haven't been paying attention to the tied trends of education and voting.
Given that the entire premise he is putting forward is that everyone in the "South" is racist, yes. Of course, I haven't met any of these people, neither have any of my friends or their friends. I'm sure there are still racists around. I'm sure there are a good number of them. However, based on the experience at hand, the kind of knock them down and keep them down entrenched kinda of racism just doesn't happen that much anymore. Anywhere.
At least not on the personal level. I firmly believe that racism is what both Gun Control and "Affirmative Action" have in common. Along with a number of other related feel good programs.
What this really sounds like is a case of "I'm not from/living in the South so therefore I'm better than you".
Moreover, those thuggish minions with which he stacked the supreme court will be there fore DECADES. And the damage they will continue to do, during that time, will most probably take GENERATIONS to undo.
So yeah, I think it will be quite appropriate to loath bush and company for the damage they did and are doing to the contry for many MANY years to come.
Yes... it was simply inhuman, the way the B*sh administration ruthlessly and systematically forced so many innocent people to buy Hummers and drive them around all day long.
Good post. Does everyone forget that the 90's launched the SUV into popularity?
Yes, right after they decided everything was the current guys fault.
But on a more serious note.. I feel this administration has ruined out economy and now its after our environment.
This couldnt be more f'd up
You know.. people keep blaming the current administration for everything under the sun... It gets rather old. Not that I'm a fan of Bush and the current administration, but please explain to me how exactly they ruined the economy? And how it is ruining the environment? With references.
Yes, I am saying just that.
The #1 complaint I had about Obama - among many - was his poor attendance on votes. After all, how can we define him if he has no history, right?
Can't say that now. You know where Obama stands now, and furthermore, you know what his word is worth now.
Do you want to find that out now? Or do you want to find out AFTER the man's been elected? I'll take the former. Anyone that says otherwise would prefer to be fed the bullshit that they've been fed for the past couple years.
Good point. I hadn't thought about it like that.:)
How the hell can people claim that eviscerating the Fourth Amendment is a centrist position?!
I'm seriously getting tired of this canard, that somehow it's a far-left position to want to maintain the freedoms we've enjoyed for more than two-hundred years. Respect for the Rule of Law sure seems more centrist to me than the current strategy of handing unchecked power to the executive.
I find it amusing that it is viewed as a 'left' issue to care about the First and Forth Amendments and somehow it is a 'right' issue to care about the Second. Respect for our rights, all of them, shouldn't be a 'liberal' or 'conservative' issue. Defend all of our rights. Respect them all.
In the end, Obama voted for it. The fact that he tried something else and failed is immaterial. If he didn't agree with it, he should have voted against it like he said he would. Voting for it just tells everyone he was okay with it from the beginning and was simply playing politics when 'trying' to water it down.
Obama voting yea. Not voting is the same as supporting an fillibuster. Obama really did the wrong thing here. I guess I'll be holding my nose when I vote for him in November.
Wait... let me get this straight... You basically just said he betrayed you.. but you're still going to vote for him??!
You make a good point. Even though Congress has the lowest approval rating in history... I think it is a safe bet that almost every incumbent will be voted right back into office. What the hell is wrong with people?!
How in the world would people be able stomach what would need to be done if there were a real war on?
Oh, don't worry pardner, we figured all that out in Vietnam.
You see, the mistake back then was we switched to white boys from Iowa and Nebraska, and when they started coming back in pine boxes, the shit hit the fan and we bailed out of Vietnam. But as long as it was just drafted Negroes and Mexicans getting shot up, and loudmouth students and crazy black political types ranting about it, all was well.
So, in the event of a war calling for European, or Russian-style, sacrifices (see Russian Red Army and peasants versus Panzer Divisions), we'll skip the white kids and just draft all the nigs and spics, and Bob's yer Uncle (Sam). It may be a long, long way to Tipperary, but relax, we have a shitload of pine boxes that know the way back to Detroit.
WTF?!?!?!
I'm having a hard time coming up with a better response for this. What the hell are you smoking? Are you serious? I was going to drag out the racial statistics but it isn't even worth it. Go forth, read some history and get back to me. Damn.
There is a world of difference between a war like WWII that was a necessary evil and the current conflict which was completely unprovoked.
I'm sure that people would be able to stomach a lot more if we were fighting a just war that had clear and noble goals or that was in actual defense of our country. Perhaps so. If history is any indication I fear we'll likely find out within either our or our children's lifetime.
Yes, there is a huge difference between this and WWII. It annoys me greatly when people draw the comparison and try and say that they both had the same lofty goals. I was only trying to compare the reaction of the public to the number of casualties. I don't recall reading story after story in the media harping on the number of casualties from WWII era sources. We do have that now.
Well, perhaps not France, but I'm sure East Germany, Poland, the Baltic States, and pretty much every country east of Austria would beg to differ with that statement.
Are you daft? The US didn't occupy those areas, the Soviet Union did. Although you're right, I imagine they were less than thrilled with the results.
If it were a "real" war, with a proper justification, I'm sure the public and our allies would be 100% behind the President. Hell, they were 100% behind the administration when we chose to invade Afghanistan. Its only after we got distracted by Iraq that our allies started to split, and public disaffection began to rise. If we'd committed the same amount of effort to Afghanistan as we're spending on Iraq, I'm willing to bet that the Bush administration would have had far more support amongst the public and our foreign allies.
I agree that everyone was behind us on Afghanistan. I further agree that invading Iraq was a distraction. I would also say that it was a mistake and shouldn't have been done. With all that said, I'm not sure if we were suffering the same losses in Afghanistan the media, and some of the public, wouldn't be bemoaning the situation just the same. I'm just not certain this generation would be able to handle a war with WWII level casualties. Hopefully we don't find out.
Yeah... that's what happened in France and all the other countries involved in WWII. I'm not saying that the current Iraq situation is wonderful. However, I'm pretty sure the French (and related areas) were bloody happy to see us at the time. And in the end I imagine Iraq will be better off as well.
As an aside, I do not want us establishing permanent bases in the area. I'm afraid that sentiment isn't shared by higher ups.
Another aside, God help us if this country ever has to fight another real war. To date we have 4101 dead. Not to belittle their sacrifice one bit, but that is over five years. We lost half that on D-Day. How in the world would people be able stomach what would need to be done if there were a real war on?
I mistated a bit. The only real cases when we deem that people truly don't belong to society is life without parole, and death. In most cases we put them away for a bit, then give them a trial time before allowing them full rights.
This is true. And I might be willing to concede that a person who has done time for a 'violent' crime may not get all their rights back as soon as they are released from prison. On the other hand, even if that is the case, at some point we must say that either this person is no longer a danger to society and has paid their debt (and therefore gets all their rights back) or they are still a danger and shouldn't be roaming around free.
Prison should also shift its emphasis from punishment to rehabilitation, to help remove some of the revolving door problem, and habituated criminal amplification (to make it sound as cumbersome as possible).
Admittedly I find my self in a different camp. I think that prison should be a terrible place that no one wants to go to under any circumstances. If it is to serve as a deterrent to crime it must be so. However, as it tends to be the case that people don't go from "no crime" to "big crime" it might be acceptable to have something less horrible, and more educational, for people who commit such lesser crimes. The goal being to interrupt the cycle before they become hardened criminals. The price for creating such a system would be that for those who commit the big crimes, prison should be terrible.
It would be nice if we could shed the shackles of classism and apathy and let this happen. Sadly we believe in the "criminal" element (i.e. inevitable), rather than the "human element" (i.e. a choice, and preventable).
This is true. In almost every case, there are always corner cases, becoming a criminal is a choice. Exceedingly few people are truly born into the life.
As for the amount we're willing to tolerate, I find this true, but still a source of depression. We should always expect the highest of standards from everyone, and enforce that.
I can understand why this would be a source of depression. It is how the world is though. It would be nice if everyone could get along and no one felt the need to steal or harm another. I fear that even if we had a society with near infinite wealth and prosperity, there would still be those who are compelled to steal, to rape, to murder. After all, some are virtually born criminals.
One last note on the grenade thing. I wouldn't suggest that most people run out and buy them. They are 'arms' though. And we wouldn't begrudge advanced technology in the application of other rights. It isn't the object, but how it is used that matters. Some would say that a grenade in the wrong hands can create a lot of problems and that is true. One could also say that a computer in the wrong hands can create a lot of trouble. Just because no one has figured out how to kill or hurt large numbers of people using one, not counting inspiring people through writing, doesn't mean they won't. And if enough people do, there will be calls to ban them, or license them, from some circles. Probably the same circles who want to ban guns and such now, no? Always remember, it is the person who commits the act. Not the object.
How effective would a registry actually be for the forces of oppression? What percentage of the public actually own guns, how many of those guns are actually registered, or have any type of trail? Half of my families guns are heirlooms, which I doubt can ever be traced back to us. Also I think a registry, on the whole, isn't a terrible idea, it makes identifying handguns used in crimes easier to identify, and thus the perpetrator of crimes easier to identify.
History, as with most things, provides the answer to this. In most cases where some form of registry was started, be it for licensing purposes or registering the weapons themselves, it has always proved extremely effective. However, there is the matter of the literately millions of guns which not only weren't sold on 4473s (the ATF form for buying a gun) but may not even have serial numbers. They weren't always required after all. Of course, you don't have to get them all do you? You only have to get enough of the ones which would be useful in combat and then one would have virtually eliminated the teeth of the Second. The thing with a registry is that it would only be useful for solving crimes if most crimes which are committed using guns are done by the registered owner. If it is true, as many say, that most guns collected from crime scenes were stolen or other wise acquired outside normal channels, this would almost never be true. We can look to a real life example of that in our neighbor to the north. Billions has been spent setting up and maintaining their registry, but not a single crime has been solved on account of it. Not very useful for the stated purpose I'd say.
We can't say who doesn't belong in society? If we can't say that, then we can't really ever put people in prison or execute them, can we? We do, so clearly we can say that. The only real point to that section is that the vast majority of people can be trusted with arms just fine. After all, we trust them with far more dangerous items.
The thing about grenades is that, just like the ease with which a firearm can be made full auto (not an assault rifle, an assault rifle is already full auto by definition), making a grenade is pretty easy. It again isn't the law stopping people, it is the utility. You are correct, they aren't useful for almost any situation outside of full fledged combat. That is the real reason people don't bother with them for the most part. Even if "legal", people still wouldn't be interested with some exceptions. I do still think that they would be protected "arms", even though I don't think there would be much of a market for them.
We do have a serious problem. However, I don't think one can find a solution to it by looking at it as "gun violence". We must instead look at it as "violence" and treat it as such. The solution then is two fold. One, for those who have crossed the line and harmed his fellow man without cause, he should be punished. Severely. To take care of those heading down that road but not yet at the end.. the solution lays in improved education.I mean real improvements, not just throwing more money at the problem as some would argue. Better educated people don't commit violent crimes, for the most part. They also obviously do better in life and don't normally lead lives of crime. No gun ban will work for reasons previously stated and agreed to. We must instead address the drivers for crime over all. Once that is done, the occurrences of "gun crime" will go down with the rest. Another avenue of attack is for the public to stand up to the criminal element and let them know we aren't going to take it anymore. Some say that we will have the level of crime we are willing to tolerate. There is truth in that.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because that's the same thing.
I'd agree only if the improvement is its elimination. Government run education is virtually guaranteed to end up being used for indoctrination of government approved ideas and thoughts. It seems these days the schools are far more about teaching garbage than they are about teaching people critical thinking skills and logic. Ignorant unthinking people are exactly what government needs to succeed. But, since you seem to be writing as a statist, I don't suppose you'd complain about that.
Wow. You Fail. There is absolutely no argument or chain of logic, pseudo or otherwise, that can reach the conclusion that Rape and Murder laws represent restrictions of Freedom. You are never "free" to murder or rape or initiate force against the person of another against their will. That precept is the very foundation of true Freedom.
At the same time you cannot simply say that education in the manner you desire is the only true way for a free society to function. I can know jack-squat about biology and evolution and still function just fine in a free society. All that is required for that purpose is critical thinking skills and a solid knowledge of history and the system of government in use. Whether such skills will lead one to reject or accept a different world view is not the issue. I do not have to be taught a government approved and sanctioned set of beliefs and knowledge to be able to make decisions as to who to vote for or how to behave in civil society.
Are you going to argue that a sufficiently motivated government or segment of the population would never use the iron fist of government education to influence the belief structures or level of education to the degree necessary to promote and virtually guarantee a certain outcome at the polling place and in society at large? If you are going to make that argument, then you haven't been paying attention to the tied trends of education and voting.
At least not on the personal level. I firmly believe that racism is what both Gun Control and "Affirmative Action" have in common. Along with a number of other related feel good programs.
What this really sounds like is a case of "I'm not from/living in the South so therefore I'm better than you".
Moreover, those thuggish minions with which he stacked the supreme court will be there fore DECADES. And the damage they will continue to do, during that time, will most probably take GENERATIONS to undo.
So yeah, I think it will be quite appropriate to loath bush and company for the damage they did and are doing to the contry for many MANY years to come.
cya, john
Thuggish minions? Care to provide examples?
Yes... it was simply inhuman, the way the B*sh administration ruthlessly and systematically forced so many innocent people to buy Hummers and drive them around all day long.
Good post. Does everyone forget that the 90's launched the SUV into popularity?
Yes, right after they decided everything was the current guys fault.
But on a more serious note.. I feel this administration has ruined out economy and now its after our environment. This couldnt be more f'd up
You know.. people keep blaming the current administration for everything under the sun... It gets rather old. Not that I'm a fan of Bush and the current administration, but please explain to me how exactly they ruined the economy? And how it is ruining the environment? With references.
You forgot the "Stand on your principals" option. He caved. He lied. Period.
Yes, I am saying just that. The #1 complaint I had about Obama - among many - was his poor attendance on votes. After all, how can we define him if he has no history, right? Can't say that now. You know where Obama stands now, and furthermore, you know what his word is worth now. Do you want to find that out now? Or do you want to find out AFTER the man's been elected? I'll take the former. Anyone that says otherwise would prefer to be fed the bullshit that they've been fed for the past couple years.
Good point. I hadn't thought about it like that. :)
How the hell can people claim that eviscerating the Fourth Amendment is a centrist position?!
I'm seriously getting tired of this canard, that somehow it's a far-left position to want to maintain the freedoms we've enjoyed for more than two-hundred years. Respect for the Rule of Law sure seems more centrist to me than the current strategy of handing unchecked power to the executive.
I find it amusing that it is viewed as a 'left' issue to care about the First and Forth Amendments and somehow it is a 'right' issue to care about the Second. Respect for our rights, all of them, shouldn't be a 'liberal' or 'conservative' issue. Defend all of our rights. Respect them all.
He spoke of following the Constitution.
He speaks of following the parts he likes, and will gladly throw the bits he doesn't under the bus. Of course, he says a lot of things. ;)
It is said that there are few places in the US armed forces where you can be promoted if you aren't the right kind of christian.
Having been in the military I can tell you that much isn't true. At least not where I was.
In the end, Obama voted for it. The fact that he tried something else and failed is immaterial. If he didn't agree with it, he should have voted against it like he said he would. Voting for it just tells everyone he was okay with it from the beginning and was simply playing politics when 'trying' to water it down.
Are you high? You're saying betraying your followers, and the Republic, and lying out of your rear is better than abstaining?
Obama voting yea. Not voting is the same as supporting an fillibuster. Obama really did the wrong thing here. I guess I'll be holding my nose when I vote for him in November.
Wait... let me get this straight... You basically just said he betrayed you.. but you're still going to vote for him??!
You make a good point. Even though Congress has the lowest approval rating in history... I think it is a safe bet that almost every incumbent will be voted right back into office. What the hell is wrong with people?!
Oh, don't worry pardner, we figured all that out in Vietnam.
You see, the mistake back then was we switched to white boys from Iowa and Nebraska, and when they started coming back in pine boxes, the shit hit the fan and we bailed out of Vietnam. But as long as it was just drafted Negroes and Mexicans getting shot up, and loudmouth students and crazy black political types ranting about it, all was well.
So, in the event of a war calling for European, or Russian-style, sacrifices (see Russian Red Army and peasants versus Panzer Divisions), we'll skip the white kids and just draft all the nigs and spics, and Bob's yer Uncle (Sam). It may be a long, long way to Tipperary, but relax, we have a shitload of pine boxes that know the way back to Detroit.
WTF?!?!?!I'm having a hard time coming up with a better response for this. What the hell are you smoking? Are you serious? I was going to drag out the racial statistics but it isn't even worth it. Go forth, read some history and get back to me. Damn.
Right. I was just pointing out that not all the countries liberated from German occupation enjoyed peace, prosperity and democracy.
Okay then.Yes, there is a huge difference between this and WWII. It annoys me greatly when people draw the comparison and try and say that they both had the same lofty goals. I was only trying to compare the reaction of the public to the number of casualties. I don't recall reading story after story in the media harping on the number of casualties from WWII era sources. We do have that now.
Are you daft? The US didn't occupy those areas, the Soviet Union did. Although you're right, I imagine they were less than thrilled with the results.
If it were a "real" war, with a proper justification, I'm sure the public and our allies would be 100% behind the President. Hell, they were 100% behind the administration when we chose to invade Afghanistan. Its only after we got distracted by Iraq that our allies started to split, and public disaffection began to rise. If we'd committed the same amount of effort to Afghanistan as we're spending on Iraq, I'm willing to bet that the Bush administration would have had far more support amongst the public and our foreign allies.I agree that everyone was behind us on Afghanistan. I further agree that invading Iraq was a distraction. I would also say that it was a mistake and shouldn't have been done. With all that said, I'm not sure if we were suffering the same losses in Afghanistan the media, and some of the public, wouldn't be bemoaning the situation just the same. I'm just not certain this generation would be able to handle a war with WWII level casualties. Hopefully we don't find out.
As an aside, I do not want us establishing permanent bases in the area. I'm afraid that sentiment isn't shared by higher ups.
Another aside, God help us if this country ever has to fight another real war. To date we have 4101 dead. Not to belittle their sacrifice one bit, but that is over five years. We lost half that on D-Day. How in the world would people be able stomach what would need to be done if there were a real war on?
Berkley. Nuff said.
Ah... the once great Great Britain. The land that gave us people such as Churchill. Where have you gone Great Britain?
This is true. And I might be willing to concede that a person who has done time for a 'violent' crime may not get all their rights back as soon as they are released from prison. On the other hand, even if that is the case, at some point we must say that either this person is no longer a danger to society and has paid their debt (and therefore gets all their rights back) or they are still a danger and shouldn't be roaming around free.
Prison should also shift its emphasis from punishment to rehabilitation, to help remove some of the revolving door problem, and habituated criminal amplification (to make it sound as cumbersome as possible).
Admittedly I find my self in a different camp. I think that prison should be a terrible place that no one wants to go to under any circumstances. If it is to serve as a deterrent to crime it must be so. However, as it tends to be the case that people don't go from "no crime" to "big crime" it might be acceptable to have something less horrible, and more educational, for people who commit such lesser crimes. The goal being to interrupt the cycle before they become hardened criminals. The price for creating such a system would be that for those who commit the big crimes, prison should be terrible.
It would be nice if we could shed the shackles of classism and apathy and let this happen. Sadly we believe in the "criminal" element (i.e. inevitable), rather than the "human element" (i.e. a choice, and preventable).
This is true. In almost every case, there are always corner cases, becoming a criminal is a choice. Exceedingly few people are truly born into the life.
As for the amount we're willing to tolerate, I find this true, but still a source of depression. We should always expect the highest of standards from everyone, and enforce that.
I can understand why this would be a source of depression. It is how the world is though. It would be nice if everyone could get along and no one felt the need to steal or harm another. I fear that even if we had a society with near infinite wealth and prosperity, there would still be those who are compelled to steal, to rape, to murder. After all, some are virtually born criminals.
One last note on the grenade thing. I wouldn't suggest that most people run out and buy them. They are 'arms' though. And we wouldn't begrudge advanced technology in the application of other rights. It isn't the object, but how it is used that matters. Some would say that a grenade in the wrong hands can create a lot of problems and that is true. One could also say that a computer in the wrong hands can create a lot of trouble. Just because no one has figured out how to kill or hurt large numbers of people using one, not counting inspiring people through writing, doesn't mean they won't. And if enough people do, there will be calls to ban them, or license them, from some circles. Probably the same circles who want to ban guns and such now, no? Always remember, it is the person who commits the act. Not the object.
If wishes were horses...
Then fly we would. :)
History, as with most things, provides the answer to this. In most cases where some form of registry was started, be it for licensing purposes or registering the weapons themselves, it has always proved extremely effective. However, there is the matter of the literately millions of guns which not only weren't sold on 4473s (the ATF form for buying a gun) but may not even have serial numbers. They weren't always required after all. Of course, you don't have to get them all do you? You only have to get enough of the ones which would be useful in combat and then one would have virtually eliminated the teeth of the Second. The thing with a registry is that it would only be useful for solving crimes if most crimes which are committed using guns are done by the registered owner. If it is true, as many say, that most guns collected from crime scenes were stolen or other wise acquired outside normal channels, this would almost never be true. We can look to a real life example of that in our neighbor to the north. Billions has been spent setting up and maintaining their registry, but not a single crime has been solved on account of it. Not very useful for the stated purpose I'd say.
We can't say who doesn't belong in society? If we can't say that, then we can't really ever put people in prison or execute them, can we? We do, so clearly we can say that. The only real point to that section is that the vast majority of people can be trusted with arms just fine. After all, we trust them with far more dangerous items.
The thing about grenades is that, just like the ease with which a firearm can be made full auto (not an assault rifle, an assault rifle is already full auto by definition), making a grenade is pretty easy. It again isn't the law stopping people, it is the utility. You are correct, they aren't useful for almost any situation outside of full fledged combat. That is the real reason people don't bother with them for the most part. Even if "legal", people still wouldn't be interested with some exceptions. I do still think that they would be protected "arms", even though I don't think there would be much of a market for them.
We do have a serious problem. However, I don't think one can find a solution to it by looking at it as "gun violence". We must instead look at it as "violence" and treat it as such. The solution then is two fold. One, for those who have crossed the line and harmed his fellow man without cause, he should be punished. Severely. To take care of those heading down that road but not yet at the end.. the solution lays in improved education.I mean real improvements, not just throwing more money at the problem as some would argue. Better educated people don't commit violent crimes, for the most part. They also obviously do better in life and don't normally lead lives of crime. No gun ban will work for reasons previously stated and agreed to. We must instead address the drivers for crime over all. Once that is done, the occurrences of "gun crime" will go down with the rest. Another avenue of attack is for the public to stand up to the criminal element and let them know we aren't going to take it anymore. Some say that we will have the level of crime we are willing to tolerate. There is truth in that.