Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The 2nd amendment clearly says it exists so that a militia can be formed as needed. We don't need militias today. We have a standing army now. We don't need the 2nd Amendment. It is not a civil right...

You might want to read The Commonplace Second Amendment by Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School.

The Founding Fathers were revolutionaries who used the militia effectively in winning independence. As a student of military history, I would assert that their era is more or less unique. The musket was such an inaccurate yet deadly weapon that militia and regulars could square off against one another on the same battle field. Generally, irregulars are only effective using guerilla tactics. In that particular time and place, this was less so. During the US War of Independence, militia and irregular forces played a signifiant role.

The Founding Fathers attempted to write the best wisdom of their time into the Constitution. They had no standing armies to speak of. They had no police forces. If there was a need to enforce the law, you rang a church bell, a triangle or shot off a musket, and citizens came running with their personal weapons. There were still threats from the natives. In the war of 1812 as well as the revolution, there was a threat of raiders from the sea that could be met by militia and which could not be met by any other force. The militia was all they had, and many thought this was enough, while others thought more would be dangerous.

A straight reading of the Constituion reflects the military structure of the times. Congress could call up the militia to enforce the law, suppress rebellion and defend from invasion. With said congressional summons, the President would become commander and chief of the militia. The states appointed militia officers, which gave first loyalty of the militias to the states rather than the federals. The phrase "right of the people" is a term of art used to indicate an individual right of the people.

And yet, the above military and police structure is long since obsolete. Teddy Roosevelt rewrote the laws governing reserve military forces, clearly separating the militia (all males from 18 to 45 years) from the select militia (paid and trained forces such as the National Guard). He zero funded the militia. The militia as an effective fighting force is a total anachronism.

Yet the laws are still in place.

I do think old laws and constitutional principles could be effectively revived. Congress has the power to regulate and specify training programs for the militia. This power might quite reasonably be used to require all who keep arms to be trained in their use, and all arms stored safely. At least, this is currently true if the owner of the arm is a male aged 18 to 45. Even the age and gender requirements could be altered with a straight act of Congress... no amendment necessary.

I am not at all sure that we want to do that. I personally have a strong interest that the Constitution should not be ignored or blatantly misrepresented. The claim that the 2nd Amendment does not establish an individual right is simply wrong. The notion that the government cannot regulate and train The People in the use of firearms is just plain wrong as well.

In stating this view, I suspect I would make people on both sides of the debate unhappy, but folks really ought to spend a bit of time reading the history and reading the Constitution.

Are guns good self-defense? Do you really need to have a gun in a bag by your bed?

A gun works only if the criminal intruder doesn't have one. It only works if you have time to load it and pull it out. Some states require that guns in homes be put away and unloaded; so they are useless against intruders to begin with.

These laws exist because most "intruders" turn out to be a neighbor or family member mistakenly shot; or the gun is used by a child and hurts or kills himself or others; or the gun is used by the owner in a fit of rage against him/herself or others; OR the gun is stolen by a criminal, which is their main source of supply. There is no such thing as a responsible, law-abiding gun owner. Give anyone a gun, and they might at any time resort to it in an argument, or while drunk or on drugs; and thus become a criminal. Guns make crime and violence easier. That's their only purpose.

If the intruder has a gun, then what you have is a shootout. No matter how good you are with your gun, and how many hours you waste learning how to shoot it, the intruder might be a better gun shooter than you. You can never be sure. It is his business to know how to use it. He has used it in battle more often than you. He is more likely to win than you.

Many times, it works just to let the intruder have what (s)he wants. Possessions are not as important as life. Sometimes I know the intruder wants more.

If the intruder doesn't have a gun, then there are hundreds of other means of self defense:
karate
aikido
boxing
mace
taser
lock
alarm
dog
call 9-11 on your cell phone

That America has an absurd fetish with guns is shown by the ridiculous amount of crime and violence shows on TV.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

We are not all armed. There are plenty of people I know who don't have guns or go hunting who live out here. We're not all this big stereotype you know.

Sure, but I don't know why you and most of the people in rural America are "up in arms" about gun control and have been taking gun control laws away to the point where our society is awash in guns, and gun violence in rural areas is worse than in cities now.

And besides there's plenty of other people who have knife and sword obsessions. One guy I know who's a bicycler has a big collection of pocketknives and daggers that's pretty impressive. It's a hobby. I myself carry around a pocketknife from time to time. It's pretty handy, especially when it comes to opening packages.

I just got a pocket knife myself. It has many other uses besides killing people. The sword or dagger is a magical symbol, as you probably know.

Look Eric, I recognize that you're on your mountain top preaching your evangel, and you have some strong beliefs here. But quite frankly this is one issue that the Left lost in the Culture Wars. And quite frankly IMO it was the obsession over this issue which cost the Left possible traction to get Environmental issues delt with in the Culture Wars, as The American President depicts this quite well: a Boomer president who becomes so obsessed with his own personal evangel that he misses the bigger and more important picture. He sacrifices the bigger issue over a smaller issue. If the environment collapses due to how we've plundered it, having a gun or a knife is going to be a handy tool for survival in such a post-apocalyptic world for getting food and keeping raiders from taking yours.

~Chas'88

It is necessary to keep speaking the truth, even if unpopular. Certainly unpopular here. But this issue routinely brings people out to defend their fears and obsessions and delusions. The gun issue is not really cultural, except to the extent that gun lovers have created a gun culture. It is a question of life or death. Not of a few, but many people. Or have you read the news this week? I know you have.

Gun control was one of Clinton's few accomplishments. His pretender successor from the wild west all but destroyed it. Too bad, but just because he was successful with the Brady Bill, among very few other things, does not let Clinton off the hook with not being stronger on the environment issue. He should have done a lot more than he did. The fault lies mainly with the American people, who did in 1994 what they just did to Obama in 2010. You can't get anything done if you put a bunch of yahoo Republicans in Congress.

Survivalism is not a prescription for progress. But I agree that apocalyptic fever may be one reason some people are buying guns now. Failure breeds failure. Our society has been stuck in regression for 30 years. The results are a declining society, and indeed a spiral downward. I agree it might happen.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

We are not all armed. There are plenty of people I know who don't have guns or go hunting who live out here. We're not all this big stereotype you know.

And besides there's plenty of other people who have knife and sword obsessions. One guy I know who's a bicycler has a big collection of pocketknives and daggers that's pretty impressive. It's a hobby. I myself carry around a pocketknife from time to time. It's pretty handy, especially when it comes to opening packages.

Most of this weapons "indoctrination" comes from that lovely bastian of Great Power beliefs: the Boy Scouts. They teach nearly every Boy Scout how to shoot and how to take care of ones knife responsibly.

Look Eric, I recognize that you're on your mountain top preaching your evangel, and you have some strong beliefs here. But quite frankly this is one issue that the Left lost in the Culture Wars. And quite frankly IMO it was the obsession over this issue which cost the Left possible traction to get Environmental issues delt with in the Culture Wars, as The American President depicts this quite well: a Boomer president who becomes so obsessed with his own personal evangel that he misses the bigger and more important picture. He sacrifices the bigger issue over a smaller issue. If the environment collapses due to how we've plundered it, having a gun or a knife is going to be a handy tool for survival in such a post-apocalyptic world for getting food and keeping raiders from taking yours.

~Chas'88

If I had unlimited amounts of money I would love to have a sword collection.

It's a guy thing.

Originally Posted by Odin

If I had unlimited amounts of money I would love to have a sword collection.

It's a guy thing.

Maybe I shouldn't say this Odin, but I didn't know you were that much of a guy. Hunting and swords. OK dude; right on.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hunting is not even necessary for anyone. These days you can get good meat at the store. You don't need to hunt. There are lots better amusements for people to enjoy. You can play baseball. I thought it was the American pasttime; you'd think it was shooting for all the hollars about don't take away my precious guns. What bullshit. You can read or play an instrument. Get together and play cards. Take up fencing or boxing or karate. Play volleyball or tennis. Have an orgy. Whatever. There's lots of other ways to enjoy yourself. To do hunting for amusement contributes to our violent society, and degrades the balance of nature.

Charles says his neighbors like to do target practice. I understand his reluctance to tell his friends to stop. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't want to jeopardize a friendship in a small town, especially if he has a gun. But sometime we need a movement in this country to go beyond our culture of violence. An event like the killings in Tuscon is an opportunity to at least talk about it. There will be many, many more such opportunities until our culture shifts and guns are no longer an American obsession and fetish.

What are they practicing for? Why do target practice? Just for sport? I don't think so. I think they practice it because they think it is a life skill. It is a wild and violent world out there, and you need to be prepared, so they think.

Most hunters take out the most healthy specimens. The real hunters, like wolves, take out the weaker specimens, and so help the ecological balance. Human hunters are not part of the ecological system. Human technology is always disruptive of the balance of nature. Humans with guns destroy the balance of nature, and are NOT part of it. Technology can at most become less disruptive than it has been. But don't deceive yourself; every time you use technology you are going against the natural balance and giving yourself an unfair advantage in the ecological scheme of thing. Tech is natural in so far as humans are an outgrowth and product of nature, and tech is part of human nature. But don't kid yourself that there isn't a price to pay in screwing things up. Our task now is to lessen that screw up enough so that nature and human life is sustainable.

This is exactly what I'm talking about with city folks knowing jack about the local ecology of where people hunt.

CLUE: Wolves do not like to come near human habitation because of centuries of being shot because they threatened livestock and because of idiotic notions of predators being bad for the environment. Thus deer near populated areas have no natural predators.

Oh, and it's none of your business to tell what other people can and can't like. You are sounding just like the shrill culture warriors on the other side.

Originally Posted by Odin

If I had unlimited amounts of money I would love to have a sword collection.

It's a guy thing.

Ditto. If I had a lot of money I'd get into the sword sub-culture, it just seems so fascinating.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Ditto. If I had a lot of money I'd get into the sword sub-culture, it just seems so fascinating.

~Chas'88

having one of those huge scottish 2-handed Claymores would be awesome!

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

You might want to read The Commonplace Second Amendment by Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School.

The Founding Fathers were revolutionaries who used the militia effectively in winning independence. As a student of military history, I would assert that their era is more or less unique. The musket was such an inaccurate yet deadly weapon that militia and regulars could square off against one another on the same battle field. Generally, irregulars are only effective using guerilla tactics. In that particular time and place, this was less so. During the US War of Independence, militia and irregular forces played a signifiant role.

The Founding Fathers attempted to write the best wisdom of their time into the Constitution. They had no standing armies to speak of. They had no police forces. If there was a need to enforce the law, you rang a church bell, a triangle or shot off a musket, and citizens came running with their personal weapons. There were still threats from the natives. In the war of 1812 as well as the revolution, there was a threat of raiders from the sea that could be met by militia and which could not be met by any other force. The militia was all they had, and many thought this was enough, while others thought more would be dangerous.

A straight reading of the Constituion reflects the military structure of the times. Congress could call up the militia to enforce the law, suppress rebellion and defend from invasion. With said congressional summons, the President would become commander and chief of the militia. The states appointed militia officers, which gave first loyalty of the militias to the states rather than the federals. The phrase "right of the people" is a term of art used to indicate an individual right of the people.

And yet, the above military and police structure is long since obsolete. Teddy Roosevelt rewrote the laws governing reserve military forces, clearly separating the militia (all males from 18 to 45 years) from the select militia (paid and trained forces such as the National Guard). He zero funded the militia. The militia as an effective fighting force is a total anachronism.

Yet the laws are still in place.

I do think old laws and constitutional principles could be effectively revived. Congress has the power to regulate and specify training programs for the militia. This power might quite reasonably be used to require all who keep arms to be trained in their use, and all arms stored safely. At least, this is currently true if the owner of the arm is a male aged 18 to 45. Even the age and gender requirements could be altered with a straight act of Congress... no amendment necessary.

I am not at all sure that we want to do that. I personally have a strong interest that the Constitution should not be ignored or blatantly misrepresented. The claim that the 2nd Amendment does not establish an individual right is simply wrong. The notion that the government cannot regulate and train The People in the use of firearms is just plain wrong as well.

In stating this view, I suspect I would make people on both sides of the debate unhappy, but folks really ought to spend a bit of time reading the history and reading the Constitution.

Good post!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hunting is not even necessary for anyone. These days you can get good meat at the store. You don't need to hunt. There are lots better amusements for people to enjoy. You can play baseball. I thought it was the American pasttime; you'd think it was shooting for all the hollars about don't take away my precious guns. What bullshit. You can read or play an instrument. Get together and play cards. Take up fencing or boxing or karate. Play volleyball or tennis. Have an orgy. Whatever. There's lots of other ways to enjoy yourself. To do hunting for amusement contributes to our violent society, and degrades the balance of nature.

Charles says his neighbors like to do target practice. I understand his reluctance to tell his friends to stop. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't want to jeopardize a friendship in a small town, especially if he has a gun. But sometime we need a movement in this country to go beyond our culture of violence. An event like the killings in Tuscon is an opportunity to at least talk about it. There will be many, many more such opportunities until our culture shifts and guns are no longer an American obsession and fetish.

What are they practicing for? Why do target practice? Just for sport? I don't think so. I think they practice it because they think it is a life skill. It is a wild and violent world out there, and you need to be prepared, so they think.

Most hunters take out the most healthy specimens. The real hunters, like wolves, take out the weaker specimens, and so help the ecological balance. Human hunters are not part of the ecological system. Human technology is always disruptive of the balance of nature. Humans with guns destroy the balance of nature, and are NOT part of it. Technology can at most become less disruptive than it has been. But don't deceive yourself; every time you use technology you are going against the natural balance and giving yourself an unfair advantage in the ecological scheme of things. Tech is natural in so far as humans are an outgrowth and product of nature, and tech is part of human nature. But don't kid yourself that there isn't a price to pay in screwing things up. Our task now is to lessen that screw up enough so that nature and human life is sustainable.

Now you're prescribing feelings that I don't share. I'm not at all for telling any of my gun-obsessed friends to stop. Nor am I shy about the matter. As I tell them, I have no qualms about gun ownership and am for sensible restrictions, and after a brief discussion I find out that the restrictions I value are ones that they're not against. I occassionally go to the Boy Scout camp's rifle range (the place where I work in the summer) and shoot for fun but I don't own a gun myself. And I can assure you that target practice is fun just as much as shooting a bow and arrow is fun (I don't see you debating that subject). Target Practice, whether it be bow and arrow or with guns is a game and a type of competition, at least with the people I know. It can be used for military training and other sorts of practice too, but it is also a type of play.

My neighbors have the right to live their lives as they see fit and who am I to think that I have all he answers in the world to prescribe to them how to live their lives? Live and let live. It's that old-time Scot-Irish Appalachian philosophy that was popular in the 19th Century in this country. You know, the figures of Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett. In fact I live about ten miles away from Daniel Boone's childhood homestead. I sometimes pass it on the way home.

You say that the gun culture isn't a culture, but quite frankly it's part of the American persona as long as those figures have been popular since the Era of Good Feelings.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Odin

If I had unlimited amounts of money I would love to have a sword collection.

It's a guy thing.

I don't know about unlimited funds, but I might own 4 or 5 swords; maybe a few long knives and machetes; a weighted chain or three; a black jack, lead shotted gloves, a short staff and a single stick...I must be a guy! Does explains the packaging.

For all that and the hand to hand training, I would prefer a gun or taser for actual self defense. Assuming I couldn't just run of course.

My favorite long knife. Not taking it seriously got me six stitches in my thigh.

Originally Posted by Tone70

My favorite long knife. Not taking it seriously got me six stitches in my thigh.

Those Japanese sure know how to make a good knife. Sorry to hear about the stitches.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Has it ever occured to you that the Founding Fathers may have been mistaken about something? ever hear of slavery?

The 2nd amendment clearly says it exists so that a militia can be formed as needed. We don't need militias today. We have a standing army now. We don't need the 2nd Amendment. It is not a civil right. It is an excuse to kill people and animals. You can't defeat a modern army with citizens carrying pistols and rifles. Ain't gonna happen. Ruby Ridge and Waco should be a lesson to you, but you refuse to heed the lesson. Americans, alone among peoples, have an obsession with guns. We live in a culture of fear and death. Our culture needs to change. We are a violent society, in word and deed. That has been proven again this week. We create violence in the world with unnecessary wars, and at home with unnecessary guns.

The Founding Fathers lived in a time in which one was either at the seashore or on the frontier. A large standing army wasn't going to be able to protect against every riot, pirate raid, Indian attack, or slave revolt (slavery was itself a mistake, but it had such consequences). If you thought the "Bear in the Woods ad by the Reagan campaign of 1984 was corny -- the woods had bears in the 1790s. People had to be more self-reliant to survive, and such self-reliance required guns. Sure, if there is a bear in the woods, then I might pack some iron.

Of course I am no longer convinced that we Americans need guns so that we can keep our freedoms. Some countries either prohibit firearms altogether or have them so regulated that they are onerous to possess and use. Ask any soldier whether he feels more leeway when using a firearm. Id the sole determiner of whether greedom exists wer 'gun freedom' then you would have assumed that Thatcher-era Britain was the dictatorship and the Soviet Union was a democracy.

Prophets are equally suspicious of government. Civics are the least suspicious. Jefferson was a civic. Prophets of my generation started this whole suspicion of government thing with our opposition to the Vietnam War. Gen X has just taken this to an absurd level with their rugged individualism clap trap.

The Millennial generation will be the only generation to have any increase in voters for the next few years. If as I said in 2008 the youngest voters of the time had no memory of the Cold War, then the youngest voters of 2012 will have no memory of the Oklahoma City bombing. They may have gone into hibernation as voters in 2010. I don't expect that to happen, especially if the 112th Congress proves to stand against every Civic virtue and stand for every Idealist and Reactive vice.

....
The potential for tyranny in this country has nothing to do with guns. Our gun mania is part of the same cloth with climate science deniers and war mongers. The right wing simply prefers a way of life that destroys life. That is why they are the instigators of tyranny in this country. That is why the right wing support tyranny in this country. That's why they gave us George W Bush and the Patriot Act. Those who support guns, they are the ones who support tyranny. A gun is the easiest means by which one can tyrannize one's fellows.

Precisely. There has never been a successful armed uprising against tyranny except by the military. Think of the revolutions in central and southeastern Europe: the Commies had the guns. People power in the Philippines? Marcos and his cronies had the guns. Struggle against Apartheid? Certainly no armed revolt there. Civil Rights struggle? The racists had the guns in plenty. Some of the anti-colonial struggles were armed conflicts = and those seem on the whole to have gone worst. Both Warsaw uprisings may have been noble causes, but both the Jews of the doomed ghetto and the gentile Poles failed because they faced overwhelming strength.

One of the greatest dangers to democracy is private, politicized militias. Need I remind you that the Nazis had the in the early 1930s and used them in the consolidation of power? Or -- in case you wish to see gun control as a "Commie plot", militias associated with the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia made the overthrow of one democracy possible in 1948.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

And I can assure you that target practice is fun just as much as shooting a bow and arrow is fun (I don't see you debating that subject). Target Practice, whether it be bow and arrow or with guns is a game and a type of competition, at least with the people I know. It can be used for military training and other sorts of practice too, but it is also a type of play.

Since so many people who hunt or target practice are against all gun restrictions, which is why we don't have very many, then defending this "play" seems to me to have very harmful consequences. As I said there are very many other ways to play. Bow and arrow is called archery; quite a venerable sport associated with Zen Buddhism. And bows and arrows are not likely to take down 20 people in a Safeway parking lot. I understand perfectly that you don't want to tell them how to live or what to do. That's what I thought I was saying, anyway. But guns are a way for people to force their will on others. People can live the way they like, I say, unless that way hurts others. Gun culture hurts people.

You say that the gun culture isn't a culture, but quite frankly it's part of the American persona as long as those figures have been popular since the Era of Good Feelings.

~Chas'88

The American persona, or culture, whatever you call it, has changed, and needs to change. Yes gun culture is a culture, but the issue is not really cultural. If it's part of the culture wars, that's because the right wing made it such. It is not really. As I said boldly, it is not a culture issue. It is an issue of life and death. It is a matter of bringing down the level of violence.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Ditto. If I had a lot of money I'd get into the sword sub-culture, it just seems so fascinating.

~Chas'88

I'm happy with my pocket knife.

What is so fascinating about sword culture for you?

Originally Posted by Odin

War is Peace!
Slavery is Freedom!
Ignorance is strength!



Sorry, Eric, but you are just plain wrong. Your mind is completely closed. IIRC you are an INTP; and you are stuck in a rut between Introverted Thinking and Introverted Sensing, Refusing to let your Extroverted Intuition to open your mind.

Meh. I think his latest rant just supports my thought that a lot of the actions of the left currently on gun control is driven by primal fear of the right. A fear on a similar level to the fear amongst the right about Muslims that drove the Patriot Act and then the invasion of Iraq. Just as the right finds it easy to imagine a terrorist in every Mosque the left finds it easy to imagine a Timothy McVeigh in every Tea Party rally. The enemy must be destroyed!

They are so dangerous and such a threat to our survival that we need to crush them before they can get us. Even if this means taking away their/our rights. We must tyrannize them before they can tyrannize us! Of course just like the right's actions after 9/11 helped fuel the Muslim terrorists and turned even moderate Muslims against cooperation with America, I strongly suspect the left's actions after Tucson is going to help fuel the right-wing groups and make them even more radical.

I'm still wondering what the left's version of the Iraq quagmire going to be. One thing that seems to be common amongst the Boomers on both side is over-reaction and administrative and strategic incompetence.

It seems also that part of the left's obsession with gun control is due to general disgust with parts of right-wing culture such as hunting rather than safety concerns. Ugh. That's so barbaric etc. They are such savages. One could make an argument that is true. It's not like I like guns or hunting. However it once again underlies the parallel between the right after 9/11 (Muslim culture is horrible! They are so barbaric!) to the left's current reactions.

As I said I do find the right's current situation highly amusing given their actions post 9/11.

Originally Posted by Odin

This is exactly what I'm talking about with city folks knowing jack about the local ecology of where people hunt.

CLUE: Wolves do not like to come near human habitation because of centuries of being shot because they threatened livestock and because of idiotic notions of predators being bad for the environment. Thus deer near populated areas have no natural predators.

That's not what I hear from experts in the field. Wolves don't have any such ingrained habits. But they can be dealt with without shooting them. Noone needs to go to a place to understand an issue about it. What you object to as my urban prejudice, I can object to as your rural one. People in the city can be quite well informed about the country environment. Many of them travel there and write or report about it, or teach about it, etc.

Oh, and it's none of your business to tell what other people can and can't like. You are sounding just like the shrill culture warriors on the other side.

It seems petty to defend all guns everywhere on the basis that I like to hunt for sport or do target practice. It is like defending the War in Iraq as a war of choice because I like to play soldier. People who like to play with guns need to support good gun restrictions. Their game is not a good reason to oppose all gun laws. But that's what a lot of them do. I am only pointing out that gun play is not a life necessity. And I don't need to hear from people that preventing gun violence is not possible, because otherwise I can't do my target practice. For practical purposes now, there's no need to ban target practice anyway.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Those Japanese sure know how to make a good knife. Sorry to hear about the stitches.

~Chas'88

My own fault. Have you seen the scene in, "The Book of Eli", where the hijacker's hand was cut off by the eponymous Eli?

Okay, dumb question...you're cultured (apologies if I've mis-assumed...guilty pleasure?) Anyway, I had seen the movie and felt the need to demonstrate this scene for my buddy---act it out if you will. Which is really stupid if you think about it (I mean he'd seen the movie.)

Did I mention the knife was really sharp? And long? So I twirl my stupidly long, sharp knife at the imaginary hijacker's hand and my leg stupidly gets in the way. Voila! Six stitches. Well really it was--Voila, gaping wound in your leg! Or something like that...

In my defense---I was not drunk! In my friend's defense---he was quite calm, in his amusement, as he drove me to the hospital. I can only conclude that I am dumb and he is better then me.

So like I said---my own fault. The scar serves as a good reminder and decently amusing party story. "I was not drunk", lands every time. Besides, "easy" chics dig scars.



Edit: It is a most excellent knife.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is an issue of life and death. It is a matter of bringing down the level of violence.

Oh brother, spare me the hyperbole.

Originally Posted by AnneZob

Meh. I think his latest rant just supports my thought that a lot of the actions of the left currently on gun control is driven by primal fear of the right. A fear on a similar level to the fear amongst the right about Muslims that drove the Patriot Act and then the invasion of Iraq. Just as the right finds it easy to imagine a terrorist in every Mosque the left finds it easy to imagine a Timothy McVeigh in every Tea Party rally. The enemy must be destroyed!

They are so dangerous and such a threat to our survival that we need to crush them before they can get us. Even if this means taking away their/our rights. We must tyrannize them before they can tyrannize us! Of course just like the right's actions after 9/11 helped fuel the Muslim terrorists and turned even moderate Muslims against cooperation with America, I strongly suspect the left's actions after Tucson is going to help fuel the right-wing groups and make them even more radical.

I'm still wondering what the left's version of the Iraq quagmire going to be. One thing that seems to be common amongst the Boomers on both side is over-reaction and administrative and strategic incompetence.

Wow, talk about over-generalization! I think Sarah Palin is Gen X, is she not?

If you actually read those who are concerned about gun control, like another Sarah (Brady), you won't find any mention of fear of the right wing. Her husband worked for Reagan, remember?

Originally Posted by Odin

Oh brother, spare me the hyperbole.

Sorry, but no. Nothing could be a more accurate statement of the situation.

Originally Posted by Odin

War is Peace!
Slavery is Freedom!
Ignorance is strength!

Wow, talk about an accurate depiction of the gun advocates' rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Wow, talk about over-generalization! I think Sarah Palin is Gen X, is she not?

If you actually read those who are concerned about gun control, like another Sarah (Brady), you won't find any mention of fear of the right wing. Her husband worked for Reagan, remember?

Of course there will be some who are not driven by fear of the right.

There are valid concerns about gun control and public safety. However there were also valid concerns about Muslim terrorism. There is real danger involved in both cases.

The question though is when it crosses over from real concerns and when fear and prejudice against an entire cultural/religious group and attempt to exert power and control becomes the driving force.

The best propaganda is one which has a strong element of truth.

Which is not to say I *like* the right. I am non-christian, non-white and female. And I don't like guns or hunting. And I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty. However as I said in my opinion I see many parallels between the left's attitudes now and what was common in the right after 9/11. Then again in my opinion I don't particularly like traditional Muslim culture either. However it doesn't mean they deserved what happened to them post 9/11.

I'm willing to bet though if the left goes down this route, being driven by raw emotion and fear and desire for power, they will likely simply end up making the situation even worse by further radicalizing the right.

I will find the left repeating the right's mistakes amusing to watch. Well it's either laugh or cry.

This article shows that you are a very perceptive person Anne.

Originally Posted by AnneZob

I'm still wondering what the left's version of the Iraq quagmire going to be. One thing that seems to be common amongst the Boomers on both side is over-reaction and administrative and strategic incompetence.

I have had to deal with the antics Boomers since they were flower children and this sentence captures their fatal flaw.

What I find so ironic is that it they are sending their children and grand-children to fight in two of the same type of war they were protesting. For the irony impaired, trust me you have no idea who you are, it would appear that Boomers are anti-war only when they have to fight it.

Just the observations of a cynical Xer who is almost a half-century old and really tired of cleaning up the mess.