Originally Posted by The Rani

He said a lot more than that, yet you and Kaiser repeatedly take this statement out of context and proceed to have a freak-out about anarchy and the end of civilization. It's not "gun control vs anarchy," and if you try and make it seem that way you only make yourselves look ridiculous.

You left out the one today (M&L, IIRC) who suggested that I was trying to change corporate policies on my own, with a gun in my hand.

It's breathtaking, how ridiculous this has gotten.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

The entire Paranoia accusation is Ridiculus and Irrelevant(much like the Accuser).

Here's 3 irrelevant references:

Black Sabbath:http://www.youtube.com/embed/kz_6jagv_D4

The Kinks:http://www.youtube.com/embed/_WJ6FbcWYRU

RadioHead:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHiGbolFFGw

PS:

PPS: Almost forgot foxy Shirley Manson and Garbage:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/rpRiSb_Ir-s

Yeah, you're right. I guess I was just laughing so hard at how off-the-wall this had gotten.

Originally Posted by Dedalus

The police don't stop crime. If you are lucky, they might be able to catch the people who killed your child, raped your wife or stole your stuff, but very rarely do they actually prevent anything from happening.

Indeed. More often than not they participate in crime, or legalized extortion, as well.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Yes, it did for me. Maybe my perspective is different from others born around the same time as me. That is possible. There was no real love for Reagan in the town I grew up in. (Another thing that separates me from other Xers who, from what I hear, supposedly grew up under Reagan worship). In my town, when we kids listened to adults around us, they talked about how hawkish Reagan was and they insinuated to us kids that he would lead us into war. (And that war would be a nuclear between us and Russia) I was a senior in high school when the Grenada invasion happened. I remember my friends and I were freaked out about that because it was the doing of the "evil war hawk" Reagan. And that, of course, turned out to be nothing. But that fear even carried over into adulthood for me with war. When we got into the first Gulf War, I was worried. I didn't know what to think. The only real memory I had of war had been sketchy memories of Vietnam as a young child. I was really scared when the first Gulf war happened because my husband and all my male relatives, including my brother and all my male cousins, were all between the ages of 18 and 26 at the time, and I was really scared there would be a draft and they would get drafted.

So maybe it is just me.

Personnally speaking, I wasn't concerned about being drafted at the time. I was more concerned about the lives of my friends and cohorts who were over there at the time.

Originally Posted by Dedalus

I know. I was trying to catch up on the thread today... sometimes I think some of these guys just say things to elicit a response, lol...

Chas and I quit trying to reason with Eric. No use arguing with someone that thinks everyone in "Flyover Country", gun-owning leftists like myself included, are barbarians

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I would like to suggest that everyone take a deep breath and a good long think.

The idea that because we can't trust the government, we have to arm ourselves, is apparently very emotionally satisfying to people (like Nomads) who have always had trouble trusting authority, perhaps because the authorities they were first exposed to didn't deserve their trust. That's perfectly natural. The problem with this idea is that it means the end of civilization.

Yes, that's right. The whole idea of civilization is that instead of settling all disputes violently, man to man, or (more often) family to family, we all submit to a system of law which apprehends, tries, and punishes offenders. I would suggest that that idea has been key to all the progress that humanity has made over the last couple of millennia--however erratic it has been.

I would also like to suggest that the US government, at its most oppressive, has been relatively benevolent within a historical perspective. We focus (as we should) on the times that we have betrayed our ideals; but actually, we have done a pretty good job of sticking to them. When people say, as they say here, that our ideals are meaningless, they are opening the door to anarchy, or worse.

"I don't trust the government to do anything" is not a solution. We have no alternative but to try to make government work. Allow me to conclude with the end of Democracy in America.
"For myself, who now look back from this extreme limit of my task, and discover from afar, but at once, the various objects which have attracted my more attentive investigation upon my way, I am full of apprehensions and of hopes. I perceive mighty dangers which it is possible to ward off-mighty evils which may be avoided or alleviated; and I cling with a firmer hold to the belief, that for democratic nations to be virtuous and prosperous they require but to will it. I am aware that many of my contemporaries maintain that nations are never their own masters here below, and that they necessarily obey some insurmountable and unintelligent power, arising from anterior events, from their race, or from the soil and climate of their country. Such principles are false and cowardly; such principles can never produce aught but feeble men and pusillanimous nations. Providence has not created mankind entirely independent or entirely free. It is true that around every man a fatal circle is traced, beyond which he cannot pass; but within the wide verge of that circle he is powerful and free: as it is with man, so with communities. The nations of our time cannot prevent the conditions of men from becoming equal; but it depends upon themselves whether the principle of equality is to lead them to servitude or freedom, to knowledge or barbarism, to prosperity or to wretchedness."

It's up to us.

I don't think anyone here wants anarchy (in the pejorative sense of the term), is about the ability to trust those in power. How can we trust them when we know they are corrupt liars?

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Here's what I remember regarding "The Day After".

ABC Discussion w/Ted Koppel post movie-airing. I remember The Sagan saying: "Oh this movie is nothing; In reality it would be WAY WORSE! WTF!!!!!!!!(LOL)

"Nuclear Winter"! Brrrrrrrrr!(LOL)

Here's a link to part 2:
http://www.fuzzymemories.tv/index.ph...videoclip-1822

Boy, the vocabulary that these guys(uh, gentlemen) use is so sorely missing these days.

Let's see what Generation these guys are:
William F Buckley Jr(1925)
Hank Kissinger(1923)
Carl Sagan(1934)
Elie Wiesel(1928)
Brent Scowcroft(1925)
Bob McNamara(1916)

GIs and Artists. What a Panel!!!!!!
I love how The Buckley refuses to alter(dumb-down) his vocabulary for an understanding from a wider audience.

Why can't we have these discussions currently? News Commentary is completely embarassing compared to these guys.

Wow, that was a great find. Thanks for the link. Yes, there was a lot of hype surrounding that movie. That movie was a big event. Probably the biggest since the "Roots" series in the 1970's. Everyone watched it. But that kind of hype about a nuclear war was going on a lot back in those days in general. And Carl Sagan's remarks were very much in keeping with what we were told.

Let's not forget all the songs that came out around that time too. Remember Sting's, "I Hope the Russians Love Their Children Too"?

...And Buckley...yes...LOL...can you imagine how that would go over today. He would never be invited back as an analysis on any news stations today because people would be sitting there thinking..WTF did he say?

You know, Amy, you have a point about end-of-the-world scenarios but I really don't give much credence to those. If it happens, it happens. You prepare for the worst, hope for the best and deal with whatever comes your way.

I think there's a far deeper generational divide here, and the more people weigh in, the more apparent it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Xers seem to feel strongest about protecting the rights granted in the Constitution, regardless of what they are.

The right to speak, the right to bear arms, the right to assemble, the right to vote, the right to be free of involuntary servitude. We're willing to do whatever it takes to protect these, because we -- in our hard-knock, cynical way -- know all too well what will happen when those are taken away. And, at the moment anyway, we see a government who isn't enacting the reforms we've elected it to, yet they spend time developing plans to limit our Rights.

Now, while we say -- No. We'll accept your regulations only after you've taken care of things that matter to us more. That's what it will take to restore our trust in you. -- others twist that to fit their political ideologies and come up with ridiculous statements and personal attacks to support their position.

So, I wonder. Could it be that one generation sees the Constitution as merely a guide, but a flawed one that needs to be changed, while the other would fight to the end to protect it? Could it possibly be that simple?

Originally Posted by Xer H

You know, Amy, you have a point about end-of-the-world scenarios but I really don't give much credence to those. If it happens, it happens. You prepare for the worst, hope for the best and deal with whatever comes your way.

And speaking of end of the world scenarios, check out the link to the video I posted under the humor thread. I promise it will make you laugh.

You may now all go on with your discussion on gun control. I will bow out for the time being. I don't really have any real fight in that argument anyway.

I'll do that... thanks for the heads up!

Originally Posted by Odin

Chas and I quit trying to reason with Eric. No use arguing with someone that thinks everyone in "Flyover Country", gun-owning leftists like myself included, are barbarians

You are exaggerating my statements. It is a matter of relative, predominant opinions.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Whoathere. You didn't read my post, refused to read it even when recommended, then bragged about sustaining your ignorance.

And yet, you want to describe the purpose of it? What the fuck, man? You've go no idea what the purpose of my post is -- no more than I have any idea what the plot of Glee is.

You have no fucking clue what the purpose of my post was -- and that's what you set out to achieve. Ignorance. Congratulations for setting a goal and sticking to it, I guess. But until you've alleviated your abject self-imposed ignorance, you're just spewing bullshit. (I don't pretend to have any meaningful opinions on Glee... that's just how ignorance works)

OK Justin, maybe so. I liked your response to David tho.

I don't know why some people go on and on about the difference between semi-automatic and automatic, unless it's because they want semi to be legal because it's not as "bad" as auto. So OK, not sure about you, but whoever says that is hooey.

Originally Posted by The Rani

He said a lot more than that, yet you and Kaiser repeatedly take this statement out of context and proceed to have a freak-out about anarchy and the end of civilization. It's not "gun control vs anarchy," and if you try and make it seem that way you only make yourselves look ridiculous.

Well, I look ridiculous to some people anyway So I don't need to care too much how I look.

I think it's up to Xer H to clarify or update his statement.

Originally Posted by Odin

I don't think anyone here wants anarchy (in the pejorative sense of the term), is about the ability to trust those in power. How can we trust them when we know they are corrupt liars?

Nobody is saying we can trust them. Or, trust but verify. We the people elect these guys. It's up to us to see that they do our bidding, not that of the wealthy and powerful. We get the government we deserve, no more and no less.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

D'oh! I should've known better than to go back that far. I was thinking of Tenochtitlan, though. That one was one of the few ones where firepower mattered (altho the artillery, to be fair, was a bit more significant than the arquebus).

---
-edit-
Tho smallpox did its part there, too. And no small part they had, those pesky white-man's microbes.

I'll help you out Justin, although the help is from that fountain of wisdom that is Wikipedia.

Some gun history:

The earliest depiction of a firearm is a sculpture from a cave in Sichuan, China. The sculpture dates to the 12th century and is of a figure carrying a vase-shaped bombard with flames and a cannonball coming out of it.[1] The oldest surviving gun, made of bronze, has been dated to 1288 because it was discovered at a site in modern-day Acheng District, Heilongjiang, China, where the Yuan Shi records that battles were fought at that time.[2]

The Europeans, Arabs, and Koreans all obtained firearms in the 14th century.[3] The Turks, Iranians, and Indians all had firearms no later than the 15th century, in each case directly or indirectly from the Europeans.[3] The Japanese did not acquire firearms until the 16th century, and then from the Portuguese rather than the Chinese.

One theory of how gunpowder came to Europe is that it made its way along the Silk Road through the Middle East; another is that it was brought to Europe during the Mongol invasion in the first half of the 13th century.[18][19]

The first mention of firearms in Russia is found in the "Sofiiskii vremennik" chronicle, where it is stated that during the 1382 defense of Moscow from Tokhtamysh's Golden Horde, Muscovites used firearms called "tiufiaks" (Russian: "тюфяки", which were of Eastern origin; this word derives from Turkic "tüfeng", meaning "gun").[20][21]
The earliest surviving firearm in Europe has been found from Otepää, Estonia and it dates to at least 1396.[22]

Around the late 14th century in Europe, smaller and portable hand-held cannons were developed, creating in effect the first smooth-bore personal firearm. In the late 15th century the Ottoman empire used firearms as part of its regular infantry. As the centuries progressed, these hand-held cannons evolved into the flintlock rifle, then the breech loader and finally the automatic weapon.

Just some history.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Xer H

You know, Amy, you have a point about end-of-the-world scenarios but I really don't give much credence to those. If it happens, it happens. You prepare for the worst, hope for the best and deal with whatever comes your way.

I think there's a far deeper generational divide here, and the more people weigh in, the more apparent it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Xers seem to feel strongest about protecting the rights granted in the Constitution, regardless of what they are.

The right to speak, the right to bear arms, the right to assemble, the right to vote, the right to be free of involuntary servitude. We're willing to do whatever it takes to protect these, because we -- in our hard-knock, cynical way -- know all too well what will happen when those are taken away. And, at the moment anyway, we see a government who isn't enacting the reforms we've elected it to, yet they spend time developing plans to limit our Rights.

Now, while we say -- No. We'll accept your regulations only after you've taken care of things that matter to us more. That's what it will take to restore our trust in you. -- others twist that to fit their political ideologies and come up with ridiculous statements and personal attacks to support their position.

So, I wonder. Could it be that one generation sees the Constitution as merely a guide, but a flawed one that needs to be changed, while the other would fight to the end to protect it? Could it possibly be that simple?

If you look at the constitution and actually read it, you'll find it provides for amendments. Even the 2nd Amendment can be repealed. I'm not holding my breath that it will happen at this point. But I don't agree that it guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. Mine was the prevalent interpretation for decades until the Bush Court put their hands on it. But they still say gun control is constitutional. So the constitution has nothing to do with the gun control debate. If you think the government will go beyond the constitution with gun control, then you have the Bush Court to stop it.

I guess gun regulations matter to folks like me as much as the other important stuff you mentioned. But meanwhile we need the government to do a lot of things. We can't just say maybe I'll support what you do when you do what matters to you. Not if we want to be responsible citizens. Trust it, but verify, and keep a watch on it.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Wow, that was a great find. Thanks for the link. Yes, there was a lot of hype surrounding that movie. That movie was a big event. Probably the biggest since the "Roots" series in the 1970's. Everyone watched it. But that kind of hype about a nuclear war was going on a lot back in those days in general. And Carl Sagan's remarks were very much in keeping with what we were told.

Let's not forget all the songs that came out around that time too. Remember Sting's, "I Hope the Russians Love Their Children Too"?

...And Buckley...yes...LOL...can you imagine how that would go over today. He would never be invited back as an analysis on any news stations today because people would be sitting there thinking..WTF did he say?

I like in "Roots" when Leslie Uggams spits in the cup of water before Sandy Duncan drinks it; Remember that?! Yeah Kizzy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots_(TV_miniseries)

Roots Mini-series intro.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/TSJUgws9M-E

I Found the Kizzy-Scene;
Starts at the 5:00; At 7:00, the "deed is done"!
http://www.youtube.com/embed/2HA8H-0_IXc
(The entire movie can be watched)!

Music:
Frankie goes to Hollywood:
Two Tribes:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/RTOQUnvI3CA
Genesis:
Land of Confusion:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/9ZtWABLuWHo

PoC67

PS: Buckley is awesome!

Update:

HOLY S**T!!!!!

Originally Posted by The Rani

I don't know how we were supposed to take it seriously with stuff like this on MTV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTOQUnvI3CA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZkKK7KZ_o

I posted the SAME two videos in the SAME order responding to ASB!

Rani,(said calmly)Please remove yourself from MY HEAD!!!(LOL)

PoC67

PS: Where have you been all my life????!!!!!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Ehrenreich: A call to protest ignites a call to arms

By Barbara Ehrenreich
Posted: 01/28/2011 01:00:00 AM MST


[/COLOR]
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse [/LEFT]

Wow, great article. Good posts M&L

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If you look at the constitution and actually read it, you'll find it provides for amendments. Even the 2nd Amendment can be repealed. I'm not holding my breath that it will happen at this point. But I don't agree that it guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. Mine was the prevalent interpretation for decades until the Bush Court put their hands on it. But they still say gun control is constitutional. So the constitution has nothing to do with the gun control debate. If you think the government will go beyond the constitution with gun control, then you have the Bush Court to stop it.

Yes, we all know how our government works. But my question was, do Boomers generally feel that the Constitution is flawed (or fluid, or adaptable, or anything else), whereas we Xers see it as an important basis to uphold?

As usual, all the generational generalities apply... there are individuals of each generation who will differ.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I guess gun regulations matter to folks like me as much as the other important stuff you mentioned. But meanwhile we need the government to do a lot of things. We can't just say maybe I'll support what you do when you do what matters to you. Not if we want to be responsible citizens. Trust it, but verify, and keep a watch on it.

Correction: it's not what I personally want, but what the American people continue to say are their primary concerns. There are hundreds of polls, weekly approval ratings and even the midterm elections pointing out the citizenry's dissatisfaction with how Wall Street and the Too Big to Fail banks have been handled. There are also polls showing that gun control ranks extremely low on the "imminently important" matters (yes, we know it's high for you, personally).

The people have every right to distrust their government when that government does everything BUT solve the problems the people want solved. Trust is earned and, once lost, is difficult to restore. Not impossible, however.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Yes, we all know how our government works. But my question was, do Boomers generally feel that the Constitution is flawed (or fluid, or adaptable, or anything else), whereas we Xers see it as an important basis to uphold?

As usual, all the generational generalities apply... there are individuals of each generation who will differ.

I don't know if there's ever been a generational poll on that question, or even if it's possible to define your question in a way that people could answer it for you. Your question has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, unless that is your real purpose for asking the question.

Again though, you missed the point. The constitution itself says that the constitution is fluid. I can be changed by amendment. That means there must be people now and then who think it needs to be changed.

I think Xers are individualistic, and so are boomers, though boomers have more trust in government in general.

Dick Cheney is a late Silent, and he more than anyone recently seems to have had a low opinion of the Constitution, if his actions are to believed. Then there was GI gen native Richard Nixon; I don't think his regard for it was very high. The committee that impeached him didn't think so; neither did his opponent HHH.

Correction: it's not what I personally want, but what the American people continue to say are their primary concerns. There are hundreds of polls, weekly approval ratings and even the midterm elections pointing out the citizenry's dissatisfaction with how Wall Street and the Too Big to Fail banks have been handled. There are also polls showing that gun control ranks extremely low on the "imminently important" matters (yes, we know it's high for you, personally).

Some of us were commenting on what you said, not on what the polls say. Maybe gun control has upticked just a bit since the events in Tuscon. Of course, so have gun purchases.

The midterm elections punished those who were making any effort at all, however inadequate, to reform Wall Street, and put in power those who are apologists and enablers of Wall Street's behavior. Not too bright.

The people have every right to distrust their government when that government does everything BUT solve the problems the people want solved. Trust is earned and, once lost, is difficult to restore. Not impossible, however.

People have the right yes. But if people don't use their government, and work like hell to see that their elected representatives are (first of all) worth electing, and (second of all) do their job, then it's the peoples' fault if their government is not trustworthy. It is a cop out just to say government doesn't deserve trust. Our government is as trustworthy as we the people make it. I say: Don't just say, "we don't trust you." Do what the people in Egypt are doing, and what people in lots of other places do who don't take democracy for granted like we in America do.

Okay, since this has nothing to do with gun control, we're going to get into the same idiotic loop as yesterday.

My question was about views of the Constitution in general, not specific amendments or how it can be changed. That's a 180-degree turn.

Instead, I wondered if there are generational differences in how it is viewed. Yes, I know there are no polls on that. But there is history, and Boomers have a very different history w/r/t authority and governance in this country than Xers or anyone else. That's where my hypothesis is formed; by looking at past actions and extrapolating them to potential current-day views.

Perhaps some other Boomers will weigh in, if only to say the hypothesis is wrong. And suggest why.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If you look at the constitution and actually read it, you'll find it provides for amendments. Even the 2nd Amendment can be repealed.

Ahhh and there's the rub. If the country passed a repeal of the first amendment what would you do? Would you abide by it? Would you take that big red, white and blue dick in the kietser? Would you keep your mouth shut?

You have just touched on "the law" vs. "what is right." Please tell me, what does a child-of-the-60's hippy turned authoritarian know about the difference between the two?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Nothing like today in the barbaric USA. And guns have only been around a century and a half.

Actually guns have existed since the thirteenth century. You might want to read a little history.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Okay, since this has nothing to do with gun control, we're going to get into the same idiotic loop as yesterday.

My question was about views of the Constitution in general, not specific amendments or how it can be changed. That's a 180-degree turn.

Instead, I wondered if there are generational differences in how it is viewed. Yes, I know there are no polls on that. But there is history, and Boomers have a very different history w/r/t authority and governance in this country than Xers or anyone else. That's where my hypothesis is formed; by looking at past actions and extrapolating them to potential current-day views.

Perhaps some other Boomers will weigh in, if only to say the hypothesis is wrong. And suggest why.

My feeling is that the Red and Blue Boomers care about different aspects of the Bill of Rights. The Blue Boomers are into civil rights, and will promote the rights of conscience. The Red Boomers will support the 2nd Amendment. I for one care about both.

My gut feeling is that the stereotypical Xers care less about principle and rights, but don't care for the government telling them what to do. This is a subtle distinction? Then again, the real Xers I meet don't really fit the classic stereotype, anyway.

There are a couple of related points regarding rights. Tom Clancy was one of many who quotes "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. worded it in a more formal and legal manner. The government can suspend rights if there is a clear and present danger. For example, hijacking aircraft is now considered a clear and present danger. Thus, one is free from search and seizure until a judge decides probable cause is established and signs a warrant... or until one wants to board an airplane.

Thus, rights only exist if judges cannot perceive a clear and present danger. After September 11th we became quite paranoid, and tended to see a lot more clear and present dangers than before.

Again, I see more of a Red / Blue divide in perceived danger than Boomer / Xer. Bush 43 decided that another September 11th couldn't happen on his watch and decided the clear and present danger was there. The strong on defense red rank and file went along. The Democrats were more likely to stand up for the Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by Odin

I don't think anyone here wants anarchy (in the pejorative sense of the term), is about the ability to trust those in power. How can we trust them when we know they are corrupt liars?

I have long argued for an arrow of progress. Since the modern series of S&H cycles started, perhaps with the Black Plague, I would tend to bet that the progressive, secular (or low church) urban higher tech faction would write the history books rather than the conservative, religious (or high church), rural establishment faction. I sort of expect in any given crisis there is a selfish, corrupt establishment that will be revitalized by a general populace that felt oppressed by said establishment. The general populace with have the aid and comfort of a new elite that might be trying to make profits using newer technology but need to seize the reigns of power to optimally utilize said technology.

One theme of said arrow of progress is that the progressive faction will generally be supporting rights. The new elites will be saying that the old establishment ought not to be oppressing the People. The People think not being oppressed is a good idea, and support the new elites.

Not trusting those in power might thus be a permanent ongoing theme underlying many a crisis. This time around, though, the People are divided. No new elite group requires a transformation of the government in order to better profit. Thus, the People haven't got the support of an up and coming elite class.

Which might be part of the problem.

Originally Posted by Odin

I don't think anyone here wants anarchy (in the pejorative sense of the term), is about the ability to trust those in power. How can we trust them when we know they are corrupt liars?

I don't trust most of them either. What I am saying is that there is no alternative to trying to hold them accountable, trying to put forward sound solutions to our problems, and trying to make things work. "Democracy is the worst form of government," Churchill said--"except for all the others."

My interlocutors in this debate are mostly Xers but I've been dealing with this syndrome since the late 1960s. At that time it was a Boomer luxury. Missionaries and GIs had created such a stable government/social order that Boomers thought they could afford to write it all off as corrupt while proceeding with their lives. Meanwhile, right-wing Boomers began planning to tear it down. And that is what has gotten us to where we are.