Originally Posted by Weave

We had more guns and more states that have passed CCW laws in the last 20 years and the crime rate has plummeted to the lowest rate since the early 1960's. Seems more guns do equal less crime.....

We in the USA still have more crime, violent crime, and gun crime than anywhere. We still have more random shootings like that in Az than anywhere. If the crime rates have fallen recently, it is due to other factors like fewer young people and a civic generation. Since more crime happens in cities, cities have taken steps to reduce crime. The #1 step has been, gun control.

People in the wild west are now living in armed camps, and want all of us to lived in armed camps, even cities like Tucson. Even though crime is low in rural areas and small cities.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Then you should learn to lock your doors and alarm them. You are simply living in an armed camp, by using guns, instead of locking your doors.

You can't prevent all crimes, but if you have a decent police system, the criminals get put away. That's civilization, Relying on guns for self-defense is barbarism. But then, this is America. We have a lot to learn.

A decent police system for a community that is mostly rural and spread out--even in the exurbs a lot of times is a laughable waste of money. And no, not everyone can live in cities: after all who then would grow the large amounts of food for you city dwellers to eat?

I live in an area where we have to depend upon state cops to come--they never do--(although most neighboring townships have their own police officers)--Neighborhood watch therefore is our only "protection", if you call everyone keeping an eye on their neighbor and themselves "normal". Is it any wonder then that I live right down the road from a gun club?

~Chas'88

On Guns: Tucson Shows Two Visions of America
» by Dennis Henigan on January 14th, 2011 Permalink
The gun issue confronts us with two competing visions of America. The Tucson tragedy puts those visions in stark, clarifying relief.

The gun lobby’s vision is guns in every corner of American society. The National Rifle Association wants guns in more American homes. It wants more guns on the streets, in grocery stores, in restaurants, in coffee houses, in bars, in churches, at workplaces, at political events, and on college campuses. Guns everywhere, to deter criminals from attacking and to shoot back when they do.

Arizona is fast becoming the quintessential realization of this vision. Arizona has virtually no restrictions on guns (the Brady Center gives it 2 points out of a possible 100 in its state law ratings) and the state recently became the third state to allow people to carry concealed weapons in public places without a permit. The state also recently allowed concealed carriers to take their guns into bars.

Have weak gun laws made Arizonans safer? The state ranks 6th in the nation in gun deaths.
http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart09.htm
FBI data indicates it ranks 13th in homicides per 100,000 population. Arizona criminals don’t appear to be cowering in fear of armed, law-abiding citizens. Arizona also has become a favorite source of lethal weaponry for the Mexican drug cartels. Three Arizona gun dealers are among the top 12 American dealers in supplying Mexican crime guns.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2010121203267

Indeed, Arizona’s gun laws are so non-existent that it was entirely legal for Jared Loughner to be carrying his Glock outside that Tucson Safeway up until the moment he pulled the trigger. He actually was one of the “law-abiding citizens” the NRA thinks is making us safer by carrying concealed weapons where we live, work and shop. If Loughner’s community college, which expelled him because he was thought too dangerous to be in class, had reported his behavior to the Tucson police, Arizona law allowed them to do nothing to prevent him from carrying a concealed weapon.

All those Arizonans packing heat did not prevent the carnage in Tucson. There was, in fact, a law-abiding citizen with a gun on the scene at that Safeway. He told Ed Schultz he got to the shooter after someone else had grabbed the gun from the shooter’s hands and he initially thought the hero was the shooter. In the NRA’s America, where everyone has a gun, it is tough to tell the good guys from the bad.

Most Americans support a very different vision of America. It is a nation that allows responsible citizens to have guns in the home for self-defense, but imposes reasonable restrictions on guns to make it harder for dangerous people to be armed. In this America, a Jared Loughner would not be permitted to legally carry a gun to a Tucson Safeway. And he would not have available to him ammunition magazines that allowed him to fire over 30 shots from a semi-automatic without the need to reload, firepower that one law enforcement official has said “increased the lethality and body count of this attack.”

Don’t tell me the Second Amendment enforces the gun lobby’s vision for America. The Supreme Court’s recent rulings are entirely consistent with the alternative vision of reasonable restrictions. In its landmark opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller interpreting the Second Amendment to grant an individual right to have a gun in the home for self-defense, the High Court went out of its way to make clear that it was not recognizing a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Justice Scalia pointed to a host of gun restrictions that remain “presumptively lawful” even under the newly-recognized right, including bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Defenders of the USA as a gun culture should think twice. What kind of society do you want to live in?

Originally Posted by Chas'88

A decent police system for a community that is mostly rural and spread out--even in the exurbs a lot of times is a laughable waste of money. And no, not everyone can live in cities: after all who then would grow the large amounts of food for you city dwellers to eat?

I live in an area where we have to depend upon state cops to come--they never do--(although most neighboring townships have their own police officers)--Neighborhood watch therefore is our only "protection", if you call everyone keeping an eye on their neighbor and themselves "normal". Is it any wonder then that I live right down the road from a gun club?

~Chas'88

There are a millions other private ways to protect yourself. Who are you protecting yourself from? Gangs in the cities are thousands of miles away. Maybe it's the bandits to whom you allow free and easy access to as many guns of any kind as possible.

Of course, if in the name of "freedom" you bankrupt your government, then of course it can't protect you or prevent crime with decent police, social programs and education. Trickle-down theory at work, folks. Get real.

And if YOU live in an area where you think you need guns, why do you impose on those of us who don't, free and easy access to guns? Why do you argue in favor of the gun culture as a solution to crime?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There are a millions other private ways to protect yourself. Who are you protecting yourself from? Gangs in the cities are thousands of miles away. Maybe it's the bandits to whom you allow free and easy access to as many guns of any kind as possible.

Of course, if in the name of "freedom" you bankrupt your government, then of course it can't protect you or prevent crime with decent police, social programs and education. Trickle-down theory at work, folks. Get real.

And if YOU live in an area where you think you need guns, why do you impose on those of us who don't, free and easy access to guns? Why do you argue in favor of the gun culture as a solution to crime?

Amen brother.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There are a millions other private ways to protect yourself. Who are you protecting yourself from? Gangs in the cities are thousands of miles away. Maybe it's the bandits to whom you allow free and easy access to as many guns of any kind as possible.

Of course, if in the name of "freedom" you bankrupt your government, then of course it can't protect you or prevent crime with decent police, social programs and education. Trickle-down theory at work, folks. Get real.

And if YOU live in an area where you think you need guns, why do you impose on those of us who don't, free and easy access to guns? Why do you argue in favor of the gun culture as a solution to crime?

This is why I hate the internet at times... irony and sarcasm frequently just flies right out the window for some people...

First off I'd suggest rereading my post to garner my general indifference/mockery to the way my neighborhood exists and runs itself. They live their lives & I live mine. They leave me alone and I don't bother them--we exist much more happily that way and don't get on each other's nerves. I'm seen as the son of a property owner, a person who doesn't really live in the neighborhood much anymore and travels to work and study in other places.

Now to address individual issues in an impartial manner that expresses my neighborhood's concerns, for while I may or may not agree with them, I at least understand them:

There are a millions other private ways to protect yourself. Who are you protecting yourself from? Gangs in the cities are thousands of miles away. Maybe it's the bandits to whom you allow free and easy access to as many guns of any kind as possible.

The gun club is mostly for those who take it as a hobby of hunting or those who like target practice and out-shooting their friends in friendly competitions. I was being ironic with my inclusion of it in my earlier post.

Personally the nearest city (population wise--also the county seat) is 12 and half miles away from my neighborhood. The second closest is 15 and a third miles away. in the other direction.

And there's been a drastic change in populations of those cities which have dramatically affected the way my community lives and interacts. The cities used to be primarially black and white, although increasingly Hispanics, especially in the 12.5 distance city have become more of the majority population. As Hispanics became more of a majority population, the blacks and whites moved out of the city--the whites taking to the farthest extremes of the county or moving north to the next county (making further waves of unrest up there that cause societal stress). The blacks simply move into the surrounding suburuban school districts and usually have no problem (although I'd warn them about entering my school district--the KKK is active here, but it's not immediately joining the city and it's well known about the KKK).

Some groups have tried to relieve the city's "burden" of teaching this growing Hispanic population and has shipped some of the kids on the border regions out to the immediate suburbs of those cities through programs that force school districts to take some students from the city to put them in a "better environment". Usually that means the introduction/armament of gangs into the school district that gets the city kids. Violence has been an upswing in school districts who get these displaced kids and several school districts have responded with metal detectors (not my former one, but then again they've always felt that the wave of "violence" won't hit them). And let's see here, there's only three school districts next to us who haven't felt this redistribution pressure--they're all in the farthest regions of the county. We probably haven't been affected since we have a very hilly terrain (bad for housing developers) and the KKK (of whom are a weird Boomer Hippie-crossbreed) scare out any potential people to move in. All the other school districts have felt this pressure and my neighbors notice the uptick in violence in those schools and using their xenophobia blame it on the newly acquired kids into that school district. This usually prompts more parents into homeschooling, sending kids into private schools, and more xenophobia.

Then you add the added stress which heavy housing development has added to the region, bringing people in from all over the place that hadn't lived here before and who come here for varying reasons (lower property taxes--though their arrivals start driving taxes up; better scenery--though that scenery is ruined by a housing development being unnaturally placed in the middle of it; a culture built around people who mind their own business). My parents would actually count as forerunners to this movement, since they settled here in the 1970s because they needed more room to keep their growing kennel of dogs they were breeding. I came along as a late surprise in the late 1980s and their kennel died out as I grew up and took their attention away from their previous hobby.

This region likes to be left alone--two townships above me is "District Township" which earned its name because it was the "Outlaw District" where all the Philadelphia outlaws would go to hideout and lay low back in the 1700s--since they knew the locals didn't usually pry into other people's business and liked to be kept alone themselves. My region when perturbed by the outside world is usually nasty to the forces which perturb it, but then again, what do you expect from those who have mixed Scot-Irish and German ancestry and are especially heavy on the Scot-Irish.

Of course, if in the name of "freedom" you bankrupt your government, then of course it can't protect you or prevent crime with decent police, social programs and education. Trickle-down theory at work, folks. Get real.

Whoa, you're accusing me of doing these things? I think you need to get your memory checked here: I voted Nader in the last presidential election. As for decent police, it's never existed here because it never was perceived as populous (or rich) enough to warrant its existance. Even now we still don't qualify--although our neighboring townships do (hence their acquiring township police within the past couple of decades). The farmers who used to populate the neighboring townships have been trading in their farms for housing developments--which not only are real eyesores, but are completely unsustainable. I don't see bright futures in the next 1Ting for housing developments and I see them as abandonded ruins in 50 years.

Also do you really think my neighbors have been attacking some made-up program put in place to benefit us that has never existed here to begin with? Again, in areas where not enough people live we've been "overlooked" by such wonderful programs. For a long time my township was known as the trailer park township and had dirt roads. It would have still been that way if it hadn't been for a few well-to-do Yuppie exurbanites and gentrifiers who moved here in the 1980s (and made a hissy-fit so large that trailer parks got demolished--new homes got built, and new roads did too) and a landfill from a different county who bought out part of the township, paying the coffers of the township--making us one of the only townships with a net positive sum for the county. We're the red-headed step-child of the county.

And if YOU live in an area where you think you need guns, why do you impose on those of us who don't, free and easy access to guns? Why do you argue in favor of the gun culture as a solution to crime?

Guns are more of a hobby here and I support my neighbors who want to own guns. Why? Because unlike the psychopaths out there, they're responsible about their ownership. They know how to take care of their guns--they know how to store them and keep them locked up. Again, they're responsible, sensible adults. So what if they like to hunt a few times a year? They do their thing, I do mine. We leave each other alone. Again, it's a Scot-Irish thing. If you want to ban it in your town go right ahead, do that where you live. You do your thing, we'll do ours. We don't care what you do where you live, why do you care what we do where we live?

I'm giving you a perspective into the workings of my community--please don't make wild assumptions about it based off of the Appalachia stereotype that comes from badly written Country Western songs and cheesy B-movies. For one, we're only in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

True. However, I don't see how the right-wing is interested in civil liberties-- except the liberty of owning a gun, which as a person on the left, I think it is really pushing it to call that "civil liberties." It is usually the right that wants censorship, racial profiling, increased police powers, etc., and it is them who are mostly behind the Patriot Act, because they are all in favor of protecting America against terrorists by any means or by war. Whether it is by threatening people with guns or a society of guns, or of sending people off to war, the right and the Republicans are for protecting my "liberty" at the expense of yours and the nation's.

Some people on the left and right have a few things in common, to the extent some right-wingers oppose the Patriot Act and similar government actions, and some on the left oppose gun control.

Actually the right to own a gun is a form of civil liberty. There is a reason why it is the 2nd amendment. The Founding Fathers saw the right to bear arms as an essential way to control the potential tyranny of the government. Keeping in mind that they themselves just emerged from a War of Independence. I think Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

One can argue about just how useful exactly small firearms is against a modern military. However it is the idea that counts. Actually given Iraq and Afghanistan, small arms can do quite well as long as the modern military actually gives a damn about PR and not looking too evil.

I do agree with you though that many on the right are somewhat selective about civil liberties. However so are the left. This was the bias I was alluding to. The right find it easy to fear foreigners and look down on things like freedom of speech and freedom of movement as shown by their actions in the 3T. Hence it was easy for them to take 9/11 and run with it to implement their dream.

However the left find it easy to fear the Tea Party types, feeling that "Wild West" and they have a strong loathing of guns. Hence it is likely that with this shooting they will do the same as the right did after 9/11 and try to take away everyone's guns "for the safety of all". They don't feel the same feelings towards the 2nd amendment as those on the right do and hence for those on the left it is a case of "how can anyone except a nutcase or a criminal want guns?" Just like those on the right after 9/11 couldn't understand how anyone but a terrorist or traitor could oppose the Patriot Act. Libertarians excepted of course.

It is easy to see the mistakes and bad things that someone else does but it is harder to see that you are simply imitating those mistakes in your own way.

I was right I think about a Patriot Act style crackdown. However I was wrong about the left using the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act has the taint of the right, especially the hated Bush. Hence for the left to do the similar crackdown it is yearning to, it needs to use a tool which fits the ideals and mores of its ideology. That it seems is gun control.

I'm willing to bet we are going to see similar tactics as used with the Patriot Act. You're against the Patriot Act - you're a traitor! You are giving comfort to the enemy. Let's hope you're not Muslim. And you don't support Palestine do you? Do you speak Arabic? Security risk! You're against gun control - you're a potential terrorist! You're given comfort to the enemy. Let's hope you don't belong to one of the Christian denominations most closely associated with the right wing. And let's certainly hope you aren't a hunter. Don't you understand we must sacrifice certain freedoms for the safety of the nation! We are in a war here! There is an enemy. Etc. etc. etc. Hey, if there's another situation may be they will push through gun control legislation without giving people a chance to read it because it is needed urgently to secure the safety of the nation. No, you don't have time to read it.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Guns are more of a hobby here and I support my neighbors who want to own guns. Why? Because unlike the psychopaths out there, they're responsible about their ownership. They know how to take care of their guns--they know how to store them and keep them locked up. Again, they're responsible, sensible adults. So what if they like to hunt a few times a year? They do their thing, I do mine. We leave each other alone. Again, it's a Scot-Irish thing. If you want to ban it in your town go right ahead, do that where you live. You do your thing, we'll do ours. We don't care what you do where you live, why do you care what we do where we live?

I say, support your neighbors who want to own guns if you like, but please support reasonable gun control to keep maniacs like Loughner from getting guns. Your neighbors can register their guns, assuming in your neck of the woods there is anyone to require this.

I'm giving you a perspective into the workings of my community--please don't make wild assumptions about it based off of the Appalachia stereotype that comes from badly written Country Western songs and cheesy B-movies. For one, we're only in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains.

~Chas'88

No such assumptions were made by me! I'm talking about the attitudes evident in what people in your neck of the woods seem to support, as evident by their political and policy preferences; not any stereotypes.

Originally Posted by AnneZob

Actually the right to own a gun is a form of civil liberty. There is a reason why it is the 2nd amendment. The Founding Fathers saw the right to bear arms as an essential way to control the potential tyranny of the government. Keeping in mind that they themselves just emerged from a War of Independence. I think Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Actually, the right to own a gun is not a form of civil liberty. It is an ability to take rights away from others, by forcing them to obey you. The idea that armed citizens can defeat a government is a myth that never works in practice. Early America had no standing army, so citizens owning guns were the only military available to them to protect themselves from threats whether from foreign kings or domestic bandits. The 2nd Amendment is an anachronism supported by people who think as if we still lived in the 18th century. Unfortunately that is the dominant mode of thinking in our country today and dominates the Republican Party.

One can argue about just how useful exactly small firearms is against a modern military. However it is the idea that counts. Actually given Iraq and Afghanistan, small arms can do quite well as long as the modern military actually gives a damn about PR and not looking too evil.

Now you seem to be arguing in favor of the home-made bombs that kill our servicemen over there. You are arguing for the right of citizens to bear explosive devices. I disagree.

I do agree with you though that many on the right are somewhat selective about civil liberties. However so are the left. This was the bias I was alluding to. The right find it easy to fear foreigners and look down on things like freedom of speech and freedom of movement as shown by their actions in the 3T. Hence it was easy for them to take 9/11 and run with it to implement their dream.

However the left find it easy to fear the Tea Party types, feeling that "Wild West" and they have a strong loathing of guns. Hence it is likely that with this shooting they will do the same as the right did after 9/11 and try to take away everyone's guns "for the safety of all". They don't feel the same feelings towards the 2nd amendment as those on the right do and hence for those on the left it is a case of "how can anyone except a nutcase or a criminal want guns?" Just like those on the right after 9/11 couldn't understand how anyone but a terrorist or traitor could oppose the Patriot Act. Libertarians excepted of course.

Guns have nothing to do with civil liberties. A gun is the means to commit a crime or otherwise force your will on others, or else to kill animals for food or sport. There are thousands of better ways to exercize your right of self-defense.

Hence for the left to do the similar crackdown it is yearning to, it needs to use a tool which fits the ideals and mores of its ideology. That it seems is gun control.

Most people want to crack down on violent criminals who use guns, including folks like Loughner. That is all the left is trying to do. I don't think the right disagrees with that aim at all. This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Actually, the right to own a gun is not a form of civil liberty. It is an ability to take rights away from others, by forcing them to obey you. The idea that armed citizens can defeat a government is a myth that never works in practice. Early America had no standing army, so citizens owning guns were the only military available to them to protect themselves from threats whether from foreign kings or domestic bandits. The 2nd Amendment is an anachronism supported by people who think as if we still lived in the 18th century. Unfortunately that is the dominant mode of thinking in our country today and dominates the Republican Party.

This is how you (and most of the left actually) think. However I think for the right many do see the right to bear arms as an intrinsic part of their civil liberties and defense against the government. Many on the left try to give some convoluted argument like you did that the Founding Fathers didn't *really* think that citizens should be given the ability to exert violence against the government. However given what they did (rise up and exert violence against the government of the day) I think that is hard to really believe that the Founding Fathers wouldn't approve of the right to bear arms.

Think about it this way - you say that the Founding Fathers only approved of the right to bear arms because there was no standing army to defend themselves against foreign kings. However at the time, "foreign kings" *were* the government. They didn't "conquer" the colonies in some war (the Indians might have a different view though). They weren't elected democratically but then again voting wasn't particularly widespread in that period. There was no standing army for the Founding Fathers to use to defeat the government of the day because there was *no* country called America. Hence there was obviously no army. What the Founding Fathers were were citizens who terrorized officials of the legitimate government of the day. They did exactly as you said - they used violence to force an outcome that they wanted from the legitimate government of the day. One could argue that they had the right to do so because they were arguably living in tyranny. They put it in because as part of the lead-up to actual war, the government of the day tried to disarm people multiple times. In fact if you were trying to maintain control by force anywhere the first thing any sane leader would do would be to disarm the people living there. Maintaining a monopoly on violence is an essential part of maintaining control, especially if the populace is deeply unhappy.

So yes whether it is distasteful or not, the right to bear arms is a civil liberties issue.

When people argue about gun control now it is inevitably about crime, culture, whether guns make you look like an idiot, won't you please think of the children etc. Which is all well and good but has little to do with historical context and civil liberties. Whether guns lower crime or not or whether hunting is a legitimate sport or unbearable cruelty to animals with little place in the modern world has little to do with its 4T context. These earlier things are the 3T conflicts and are to do with the respective cultural clashes between the left and right. Eventually history and civil liberties and how gun control (and other things like free speech) fit in will become the 4T issues.

People also like to imagine that "Well it was so obvious the English were in the wrong and the Founding Fathers were right so there is absolutely no comparison to now." However these things are rarely non-ambiguous during the times they occur.

Most people want to crack down on violent criminals who use guns, including folks like Loughner. That is all the left is trying to do. I don't think the right disagrees with that aim at all. This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

Actually the right used that argument too with the Patriot Act. All they want to do is to crack down on Muslim terrorists. Ain't got nothing to do with civil liberties.

By the way I find the predicament the right find themselves in right now high amusing given their support of the Patriot Act.

The only thing I would find even funnier is if after disarming people the left find themselves fighting against the government relying on a bunch of right-wing nuts who illegal hid weapon stashes.

Also if fear of Muslims unconsciously played a part in why the right was so eager to implement the Patriot Act and then invade Iraq I would say despite all the protestations about how it is just about safety, fear of the right - not just guns but also their whole cultural traditions - underlies a large part of why the left is eager to use this shooting as an excuse to take away their guns. The idea is to neuter what you fear by taking away their potential for violence and control and contain them. Also just the desire to be in control and "win" against the other side counts too. So I don't really buy the "it's just public safety" argument. Isn't there a saying, there is usually the good reason and then there is the real reason? And often the real reason is about fear and power.

I begin to wonder if the left's opposition to the Patriot Act was more to do with the fact that Bush and the right were pushing it rather than because they were intensely passionate about civil liberties. It seems if given the same opportunities to act against a group of people they have long feared and mistrusted, they will like the right, take it and run.

You know in this battle, I wonder what the left's version of the Iraq quagmire and airport security overkill such as looking at naked people and Muslims being thrown off planes going to be?

Originally Posted by AnneZob

....Also if fear of Muslims unconsciously played a part in why the right was so eager to implement the Patriot Act and then invade Iraq I would say despite all the protestations about how it is just about safety, fear of the right - not just guns but also their whole cultural traditions - underlies a large part of why the left is eager to use this shooting as an excuse to take away their guns."...

The right led by Pres Bush was eager to invade Iraq, but recall that the majority ( ~70%)was in favor of this invasion ( see PEW article below). I am very hawkish when our national interests are at stake, but I never thought that this 'war' made sense. In addition the notion of nation building is contrary to our national interests.

Iraq War Wrong Decision - Pew Research Center
http://pewresearch.org/databank/dail...r/?NumberID=16
"Since the beginning of 2007, positive views of the situation in Iraq have risen dramatically; however, the number of Americans who believe invading Iraq was the wrong decision (49%) is almost exactly what it was two years ago. The number of Americans saying invading Iraq was the right decision has hovered around 40% for those two years, and is currently at 43%. In contrast, while opinion about the situation in Afghanistan is less positive, nearly two-thirds (64%) believe the decision to use military force in that country was the right decision. "...

Originally Posted by radind

The right led by Pres Bush was eager to invade Iraq, but recall that the majority ( ~70%)was in favor of this invasion ( see PEW article below). I am very hawkish when our national interests are at stake, but I never thought that this 'war' made sense. In addition the notion of nation building is contrary to our national interests.

I strongly suspect that the main reason why the public tide turned against the wars was not so much because people suddenly went "Wait was this the right and moral thing to do? Does it actually make any sense?" Rather the sense of remorse is because America is losing. I am willing to bet that if America was winning and the neo-cons accomplished their dream of establishing military bases in Iraq Bush and the neo-cons would be feted as heroes regardless of the moral or otherwise dimension of the war.

What is the saying? Success has many fathers while failure is an orphan?

Also there has been nothing on the scale of 9/11 on American soil again.

Originally Posted by AnneZob

I strongly suspect that the main reason why the public tide turned against the wars was not so much because people suddenly went "Wait was this the right and moral thing to do? Does it actually make any sense?" Rather the sense of remorse is because America is losing. I am willing to bet that if America was winning and the neo-cons accomplished their dream of establishing military bases in Iraq Bush and the neo-cons would be feted as heroes regardless of the moral or otherwise dimension of the war.

What is the saying? Success has many fathers while failure is an orphan?

Also there has been nothing on the scale of 9/11 on American soil again.

However, in my opinion, a war to build a nation for other people is intrinsically not winnable. Unless you are willing to be ruthless and remove the native population, the whole concept is flawed. This was an impossible mission for the USA.

Originally Posted by radind

However, in my opinion, a war to build a nation for other people is intrinsically not winnable. Unless you are willing to be ruthless and remove the native population, the whole concept is flawed. This was an impossible mission for the USA.

I disagree with 'intrinsically not winnable'. I would say it is very very hard. I would say the Bush 43 administration went in thinking democracy was so inherently superior to tyranny that the transition would be easy. I would say the armed forces were using attrition tactics rather than counterinsurgency tactics early, which only built resentment. There was far too much 'collateral damage.' I would say the occupying forces did not respect the rights of the occupied people. I would say the emphasis on the oil and the possibility of future invasions resulted in Iraq's neighbors assisting anyone who was resisting the occupation. The manpower level required to suppress insurrection was known, but Rumsfeld and other neo cons who thought high tech was a force multiplier did not believe the traditional wisdom and cut way back on manpower levels.

In short, Bush 43 and company did a lot wrong in the first few years. It is very difficult to transform a nation at gunpoint, but I wouldn't use Iraq as proof that it is always impossible. It was botched.

Originally Posted by radind

However, in my opinion, a war to build a nation for other people is intrinsically not winnable. Unless you are willing to be ruthless and remove the native population, the whole concept is flawed. This was an impossible mission for the USA.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that.

What I am trying to say is that the current remorse in the USA is not because the country regrets invading Iraq so much as it regrets losing. There is also a sense of resentment against those 'ungrateful' Iraqis.

It's the difference between feeling sorry for doing something wrong and realize the errors of your ways and feeling sorry because you got caught and punished.

What this means is that America may not try to invade other countries in the future. In fact it may try to withdraw from more. However the ideology, trends and driving forces behind the invasion - fear of entire groups, desire to secure energy supplies, worship of military power, complacency/disdain of civil liberties, belief in exceptionalism - are most likely still there. They are just going to manifest in different ways, perhaps internally. And it looks like both the left and the right are similar in this regard. It's just the target group that differs.

It is possible that this 4T is what prepares America mentally to try to truely conquer other nations. That is the 2T may be the re-emergence of the American military on the world stage.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Then you should learn to lock your doors and alarm them. You are simply living in an armed camp, by using guns, instead of locking your doors.

You can't prevent all crimes, but if you have a decent police system, the criminals get put away. That's civilization, Relying on guns for self-defense is barbarism. But then, this is America. We have a lot to learn.

what authoritarian bullshit. Many cops are worse than the criminals they are supposed to be catching.

Armed camp?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I say, support your neighbors who want to own guns if you like, but please support reasonable gun control to keep maniacs like Loughner from getting guns. Your neighbors can register their guns, assuming in your neck of the woods there is anyone to require this.

Of course, it's illegal here to own a gun without registration.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Odin

what authoritarian bullshit. Many cops are worse than the criminals they are supposed to be catching.

Quite agreed.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That would make sense; except that it is the folks in the American heartland that are the most militantly opposed to gun control (as demonstrated on this thread), and folks in the most dangerous cities that often have very strict gun control, with strong support from the people in them. Those opposing gun control sound like they are the ones who are afraid the "junkie world will light up." This is the sentiment I get from them. I need to have a gun, and these are all the examples where someone has protecting himself from an intruder with a gun. Yet they are heartland voters. If Democrats push gun control, their states will all turn from purple to blood red. "Don't take away my guns! Let me carry them concealed under my jacket! Because you can't trust the criminals." You'd think they live in the Bronx. So therefore, they must have guns, and they must carry them around, because that's what they say they believe in.

I think they are locking their doors more now too. That would seem only logical. If you feel you need a gun for protection, even from a wolf, or from a thug, you are certainly going to lock your door too, and probably put up an expensive alarm system too. You think copperfield is going to keep a loaded gun by his bed, and not lock his door?

That presumes that the heartland voter is actually motivated by the security argument. By and large, heartland voters probably care far more about hunting than anything else.

Don't confuse the pro-gun voters with the NRA. The NRA is an interest group. Their prime constituency wants guns for hunting, and a small minority is concerned about security.

Does anyone remember Michael Moore's 'Bowling For Colombine?'

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/Talkin...10115-481.html

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Actually, the right to own a gun is not a form of civil liberty. It is an ability to take rights away from others, by forcing them to obey you.

I am pretty much done with this debate, but the irony in this statement is so hysterically awe-inspiring, I just have to quote it.

Originally Posted by Odin

what authoritarian bullshit. Many cops are worse than the criminals they are supposed to be catching.

Armed camp?

I generally support the police, as they have a dirty, often thankless job of scraping bad guys off the street and putting them away. Medium, CSI:NY and Criminal Minds are my favorite TV shows. And even where I live now, criminals are far more numerous than rogue cops, and therefore represent a far greater threat.

That said, I have had run-ins (not in a long while, since the 1980s) with certain cops that are indeed bullies, more like the criminals they catch than most of their fellow cops. So I can indeed foresee a situation where I might have to defend my home against cops as well... even as 'defense' would likely mean taking a few of them out before they get me.

"Parable Of The Sower" by Octavia Butler. I always keep coming back to that book as my worst-case internal 4T scenario.

Originally Posted by Odin

I'm sorry Eric, but the gun issue has brought out a disgustingly close-minded and prejudiced side of you I am DEEPLY offended by...

-As opposed to all of his other disgustlingly close-minded and "prejudicial" sides... (see below)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

JDG 66 is James Glick, right? Not much more I need to know...

-Instead of being a typical closed-minded Leftie, you could try answering these points:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The fact is, gun control laws work; but not in uncivilized societies like heartland America, the wild west reborn...

1) You obviously didn't read this very carefully:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...Many of those guns are taken from the Mexican government (stolen or "bought"). As I posted before, most come from places other than the US:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/

The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.


So, if not from the U.S., where do they come from? There are a variety of sources:


-- The Black Market...


-- Russian crime organizations...


- South America...


-- Asia...


-- The Mexican Army (as I previously posted)... Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."


-- Guatemala...

...except for the Mexican Army, all smuggled.

You stand corrected.

You're welcome...

2) Uh, Heartland America has lower crime rates than the places with gun control do. Come to think of it, I once saw a study which pointed out that the "Wild West" had lower crime rates than New York City (which, incidentally, had an early form of gun control).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...I say let red or Heartland America split up from those of us who don't want to live in fear, and form their own wild west sub-nation...

-Actually, gun ownership in the US is associated with lower rates of crime.

And the UK:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1950860/the_uk_gun_ban.html

How has that UK gun ban been working?

• In the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled.
• Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York.
• England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's.
• 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police.

In a [2002] United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

...and Australia:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

• Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
• Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
• Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
• In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
• In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
• There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

...instead of dodging them.

And BTW, you keep posting about "hundreds" of crimes prevented by armed citizens every year. Uh, that's HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS. Take out the means for people to defend themselves, and you get the above.

Remember, the police are under no legal obligation to protect you.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Do you know what the Alaska Independent Party is? Probably not...

-Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, we had a big brouhaha over it back in 2008. Besides, the title is self-explanatory, don't you think? As far as anyone can tell, no harm done (if there were...)

Anyway, Sarah Palin never belonged (are you, or have you ever been a member of the AIP? ), and her husband dropped out.

Yeah, I don't understand why Eric wishes to ensure that the only people who have guns already have the power. Lets un-even the playing field!

And I know this is a big NRA point but if you don't allow citizens to have weapons the only people with guns will be ones who explicitly want to harm others and have no regard for the law.

Yeah, one more thing about gun violence. Everyone is getting a hard-on about Arizona's gun laws and how lax they are. We have far less shooting violence than many eastern big cities with far stricter gun control! And don;t tell me it's because Phoenix is small, because it isn't, or because there are not a lot of poor, there are.

The idea that gun control would stop premeditated gun violence is utter bullshit.

I was chatting with a friend (and former regular here) this AM and she mentioned an incident last summer of which I had only a dim memory. I looked it up and it seems that it happened around the time my mother died, which is probably why it went by me. There is one brief mention of it in this thread, above, in an article some one posted, but no discussion. Yet it is certainly highly relevant.


Glenn Beck denies fomenting terrorism - Byron Williams, Tides Foundation incident say different

* August 1st, 2010 9:51 pm PT

Aug 01, 2010 - The homegrown terror plot foiled by police in Oakland, California in the early morning hours of July 18th had all the potential of a full-fledged and deadly attack on progressive organizations.

The suspect accused in a shootout with California Highway Patrol officers told officials that he planned to attack two nonprofit groups in San Francisco "to start a revolution," according to a probable cause statement released by police.

Bryon Williams, 45, a convicted felon with two prior bank robbery convictions, targeted workers at the American Civil Liberties Union and the Tides Foundation, said Oakland police Sgt. Michael Weisenberg in court documents.

While the ACLU is a favorite whipping boy of the radical right, not many people have heard of the Tides Foundation. Unless, of course, they listen to Glenn Beck.

Beck has decided to make the Tides Foundation a target, attacking the group again and again from his pulpit.

Media Matters reports that since January 19th, 2009, Tides Foundation was attacked on Fox News 31 times. Of those, 29 came from Beck and two from Sean Hannity. Two of Beck's tirades were the very week before Byron Williams set out after Tides.

Williams was stopped by police for erratic driving, and was apparently drunk. What if he would have been sober, if he didn't want to go on his rampage all lit up? He could have easily been well into his killing spree before anyone were the wiser.

On his Friday radio show Beck didn't do anything to ease the inflammatory nature of his rhetoric, choosing instead to twist the news into an attack on him.

Beck said that the media is "now imaging me as a terrorist and a racist," and has attacked him for "accusing them of being anti-capitalist, far left radicals and indoctrinating children. I stand by each one of those."

"I am the only one that has mentioned the Tides Foundation," Beck continued. "So that's what they're using. This guy couldn't have found this out on his own, it had to come from me."

"America if you don't think that they will use anything, they will. They absolutely will," Beck added.

Byron Williams own mother offered a different take, telling the media that her son watched the news on TV and was "upset at how Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items."

Tides Foundation CEO Drummond Pike issued a statement on the arrest of Byron Williams in which he said "on occasion, the shadow of violence falls on American civic life and it should never be accepted or tolerated. Often, it is encouraged by partisan voices who label activities of which they disapprove by suggesting they are "anti-American" or some other epithet."

Glenn Beck followers need to understand that it isn't others in the media who are fomenting violence, it's their shepherd. Despite his hollow calls for peace, Beck and some of his supporters are a national train wreck waiting to happen.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Glenn Beck denies fomenting terrorism - Byron Williams, Tides Foundation incident say different - Portland liberal | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-p...#ixzz1B8Rk96LQ


I have three brief comments on the gun debate.

1. The NRA is now trying to return us to the 1840s-1850s, when Congressmen frequently came to sessions armed (especially Southerners--some things do not change) and threatened one another. I have already pointed out that they want to repudiate, in effect, the town regulations that civilized the old west, forcing cowboys to check their guns when they came into town.

2. To judge from this forum Generation X is almost unanimously opposed to any kind of gun control. Given their distrust of institutions there's a certain logic to this, but the idea that people can genuinely protect their personal liberty against the government with guns is a fantasy.

3. Which leads me to (3): the founders did not pass the Second Amendment to make sure people could make revolutions. They passed it because they opposed standing armies and therefore favored militias in every town and state to keep order, fight Indians, etc. The Second Amendment in its original form is effectively a dead letter since we now trust to professionals to do all our law enforcement and defense. The Roberts Court, of course, has rewritten it as an individual right to own weapons, which was not the original intent, if you'll pardon the phrase, at all.

Gen Xers, libertarian fantasies are about to come true at the local level in many jurisdictions. It ain't going to be pretty. Depending on events of the next two years they may come true at the national level as well. You may eventually develop a taste for stronger institutions.