The Maelstrom of Violence

[Classic-Xer]

(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-05-2017, 10:32 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: That only demonstrates that you either have no desire to have a permanent blue ruling class or you have realized that their position on having an unarmed population is extremely dangerous.

Well, no. I see the country divided by two cultures who have embraced different solutions in different environments to different problems. Each seems certain enough that its own solutions are correct to attempt to force their culture on the other. This is unfortunate and problematic.

It is also a problem in Rule of Law. The Constitution means something. One should not throw it away lightly.

Of course, gun policy is a complex question. You can't bring up the above without leaving the door wide open for class and partisanship. You can try somewhat, but people's values are focused on different things. You have got to expect different arguments reflecting that. At one level I have no problems with a different angle and approach, while at another I regret how the problem gets more difficult.

But the key here is worlds being put into my mouth. Kinser's values are as good as any extreme partisan's, but they do not mesh well with mine. I see this as a general problem. Kinser projects values on others freely, often as universals. He just assumed the above must be true. It is just clearer in this case as the values are being projected on mine. Kinser's statement is just wrong and clearly so.

I suppose I should clarify more about the distinction between generalization and vile stereotype. Again, any forum dedicated to the behavior of large amounts of people is going to have to generalize somewhat. We might become boomers, blue leaning or aging hippies. A vile stereotype is something uglier. The target is generally being demeaned and insulted. The generalizations made are generally insulting and often inaccurate. I have also often seen partisans use vile stereotypes to build a straw man attack. If the extreme partisan is having problems defending his values, he will ignore what is said in favor of attacking an often beat up straw man.

Now, I have a great deal of respect for the Obamas. I have less, of course, for Carson and Kinser, not for their skin pigmentation, but for their world views. Somehow, some can't seem to avoid identity politics, and keep bringing it back to skin pigmentation. I'd rather not, but some are quite obsessed with it. Anyway, all of them are real enough and specific enough people that it seems a shame to lump them into a common generalization, let alone a vile stereotype.

Is it an insult to say the Obamas are a little different? I hope not. They are mighty fine people, with skin pigmentation not playing a part of anything. Some people can't seem to move off it being a vile stereotype. Where did that come from? How does any of their beliefs or actions fit in the ugliness of a vile stereotype?

[Classic-Xer]

(09-05-2017, 05:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: These dudes are spouting many talking points I have heard on "Right Wing" talk radio and read on "Right Wing" forums.

The whole "Blacks voting mostly Dem means being on the Dem plantation" meme, for instance. Hey look, I'm happy to acknowledge Black Conservatives. But the fact is, most Blacks are not Conservatives. There are reasons.

The truth is, in the main, the GOP is the party of White Men. The stats are abundantly clear on this point.

True, I'd say that most blacks aren't Republican voters or Conservatives as you say and the stats are abundantly clear on that point. I was born a white American and there ain't much I'm able to do about that or able to change about that fact. I'm not going to darken my skin, discard my heritage or my values in order to relate and identify with you or any other black person. I'm sure the average black American's values aren't much different than my values.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-05-2017, 07:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 10:32 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: That only demonstrates that you either have no desire to have a permanent blue ruling class or you have realized that their position on having an unarmed population is extremely dangerous.

Well, no.  I see the country divided by two cultures who have embraced different solutions in different environments to different problems.  Each seems certain enough that its own solutions are correct to attempt to force their culture on the other.  His is unfortunate and problematic.

It is also a problem in Rule of Law.  The Constitution means something.  One should not throw it away lightly.

Of course, gun policy is a complex question.  You can't bring up the above without leaving the door wide open for class and partisanship.  You can try somewhat, but people's values are focused on different things.  You have got to expect different arguments reflecting that.  At one level I have no problems with a different angle and approach, while at another I regret how the problem gets more difficult.

But the key here is worlds being put into my mouth.  Kinser's values are as good as any extreme partisan's, but they do not mesh well with mine.  I see this as a general problem.  Kinser project's values on others freely, often as universals.  He just assumed the above must be true.  It is just clearer in this case as the values are being projected on mine.  Kinser's statement is just wrong and clearly so.

I suppose I should clarify more about the distinction between generalization and vile stereotype.  Again, any forum dedicated to the behavior of large amounts of people is going to have to generalize somewhat.  We might become boomers, blue leaning or aging hippies.  A vile stereotype is something uglier.  The target is generally being demeaned and insulted.  The generalizations made are generally insulting and often inaccurate.  I have also often seen partisans use vile stereotypes to build a straw man attack.  If the extreme partisan is having problems defending his values, he will ignore what is said in favor of attacking an often beat up straw man.

Now, I have a great deal of respect for the Obamas. I have less, of course, for Carson and Kinser, not for their skin pigmentation, but for their world views.  Somehow, some can't seem to avoid identity politics, and keep bringing it back to skin pigmentation.  I'd rather not, but some are quite obsessed with it.  Anyway, all of them are real enough and specific enough that it seems a shame to lump them into a common generalization, let alone a vile stereotype.

Is it an insult to say the Obamas are a little different?  I hope not.  They are mighty fine people, with skin pigmentation not playing a part of anything.  Some people can't seem to move off it being a vile stereotype.  Where did that come from?  How does any of their beliefs or actions fit in the ugliness of a vile stereotype?

What's your (the liberal) view of the world? Is it realistic or dream like? As a general rule, I don't have issues defending my values because most people are able to identify them and share them and don't attack them. I spend more time brushing off liberal stereotypes (both vile and ignorant generalizations) than I do defending values.

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-05-2017, 07:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 05:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: These dudes are spouting many talking points I have heard on "Right Wing" talk radio and read on "Right Wing" forums.

The whole "Blacks voting mostly Dem means being on the Dem plantation" meme, for instance. Hey look, I'm happy to acknowledge Black Conservatives. But the fact is, most Blacks are not Conservatives. There are reasons.

The truth is, in the main, the GOP is the party of White Men. The stats are abundantly clear on this point.

True, I'd say that most blacks aren't Republican voters or Conservatives as you say and the stats are abundantly clear on that point. I was born a white American and there ain't much I'm able to do about that or able to change about that fact. I'm not going to darken my skin, discard my heritage or my values in order to relate and identify with you or any other black person. I'm sure  the average black American's values aren't much different than my values.

Uh,  some cream has hidden coffee.  Some coffee has hidden cream.  

[Classic-Xer]

(09-05-2017, 09:59 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 08:10 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 07:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 05:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: These dudes are spouting many talking points I have heard on "Right Wing" talk radio and read on "Right Wing" forums.

The whole "Blacks voting mostly Dem means being on the Dem plantation" meme, for instance. Hey look, I'm happy to acknowledge Black Conservatives. But the fact is, most Blacks are not Conservatives. There are reasons.

The truth is, in the main, the GOP is the party of White Men. The stats are abundantly clear on this point.

True, I'd say that most blacks aren't Republican voters or Conservatives as you say and the stats are abundantly clear on that point. I was born a white American and there ain't much I'm able to do about that or able to change about that fact. I'm not going to darken my skin, discard my heritage or my values in order to relate and identify with you or any other black person. I'm sure  the average black American's values aren't much different than my values.

Uh,  some cream has hidden coffee.  Some coffee has hidden cream.  

Cream with hidden coffee here ...

It wouldn't/doesn't matter to me either way.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-05-2017, 08:10 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 07:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 05:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: These dudes are spouting many talking points I have heard on "Right Wing" talk radio and read on "Right Wing" forums.

The whole "Blacks voting mostly Dem means being on the Dem plantation" meme, for instance. Hey look, I'm happy to acknowledge Black Conservatives. But the fact is, most Blacks are not Conservatives. There are reasons.

The truth is, in the main, the GOP is the party of White Men. The stats are abundantly clear on this point.

True, I'd say that most blacks aren't Republican voters or Conservatives as you say and the stats are abundantly clear on that point. I was born a white American and there ain't much I'm able to do about that or able to change about that fact. I'm not going to darken my skin, discard my heritage or my values in order to relate and identify with you or any other black person. I'm sure  the average black American's values aren't much different than my values.

Uh,  some cream has hidden coffee.  Some coffee has hidden cream.  

Very amusing, but I remember a similar set of tests being done on identical European blonde female triplets.  The place of origin identifications came out entirely different.  Same genes?  Different test results?  Before taking this sort of test too seriously I'd want to send samples to different companies and get a converging result.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-05-2017, 08:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What's your (the liberal) view of the world? Is it realistic or dream like?

Good questions.

In many ways, I strive to be one of balance.  You have to be realistic, yet calling yourself a Whig you can't let the basic Enlightenment values go.  Democracy, human rights, sharing risks and costs, helping one's fellow man, all that fits in.  A government works for the common welfare, not for the few.

There is also a notion that there is always a rich elite, that no matter how much they have they want more, that they always strive to control the government, and that only occasionally will the many get upset enough to contest the rich getting richer.  Often in the sequence of S&H Anglo American crisis, a new elite favoring a new technology will align with the working guy to push Whig values.  This is not coming together well this time around, at least not yet.

Nast's vile stereotype of Tweed might stand as a base for how I am ready to view the rich and few as natural enemies of the working many.  I do remember when our high school band doing an exchange concert placing me with a richer family.  It was a tradition, giving members of one band and chorus an opportunity to meet their opposites.  "Oh, let's go visit my father's hanger, and tour his collection of historic airplanes."  No one was as fat as Nast portrayed them, or Marx explained them.  Still, there is an assumption that there are traditional historic bad guys, tempered by an impression of how ordinary the seemed to be, or at least how ordinary they could look on the surface.

I guess Reagan's vile stereotype of the black pregnant welfare queen, treating government generosity as a way of life, might stand opposite Nast's Boss Tweed.  Balance means not getting too obsessed with either, yet trying to take the precautions to prevent the worst abuses coming from anywhere.

Regarding war, I am personally concerned with Powell's questions.  If we are going to go in, let there be well identified goals, a way to achieve them, and a way out.  Bush 43's war demonstrated how much resistance a sole superpower and wannabe neo colonialist will meet, the problems with insurgent war, and how easily unintended consequences leak in.  In short, I am very dubious about foreign intervention.

And yet containment, the domino theory, isn't entirely bogus.  You don't want to give autocratic governments a free and easy expansionist path.  The choices aren't trivial and easy.

And there is the basic balance.  We have a huge division of wealth, which implies the ability to increase taxes.  One party pushes military spending, the other domestic.  Yet, if our military is to be of a certain size, shouldn't they be funded well enough for proper maintenance and training?  Do we want the rich getting richer?  Can we afford a floor, something like UDHR 25's protection so we won't let our own slip below a certain level of basic food, clothing, shelter and health care?  

I don't think I need explain or defend the basic liberal view on most of that.  For the most part, I'm leaning blue.

And the above is before getting into the urban - rural divide.  I’m afraid I can’t give you a short answer.  Please accept the basics, ask questions, and re-read a few of my old posts.

(09-05-2017, 08:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: As a general rule, I don't have issues defending my values because most people are able to identify them and share them and don't attack them. I spend more time brushing off liberal stereotypes (both vile and ignorant generalizations) than I do defending values.

I might go a step further.  As a liberal in Massachusetts, I seldom have to brush off stereotypes or defend values.

This forum seems to have different rules.  It seems you are supposed to test values, to push against others.  Conversations that involve strange values and vile stereotypes are far more common than in real world.

This almost makes me reluctant to answer your question.  I expect strawmen.  I half expect someone to come in and say no, I lie, all liberals believe (insert absurd vile easily defeated argument here) and (insert the defeat of the easily defeated argument.)  The idea that the opposition might have though things out and be fighting for worthy cause can seem strange to many people.

Do you (or does anyone else) have an equivalent set of opposing values?  Can you critique my values honestly without going into strawmen?

And then, the way you asked the question reminds me of...

Ted Kennedy Wrote:And someday, long after this convention, long after the signs come down and the crowds stop cheering, and the bands stop playing, may it be said of our campaign that we kept the faith. May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again. And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:

I am a part of all that I have met
Tho much is taken, much abides
That which we are, we are–
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

[Bob Butler 54]

Another thought that falls out of the Boss Tweed / Welfare Queen dichotomy.  'The opportunities I exploit are just fine, but the stuff that people different from me exploits should be blocked and prevented.'  This trend may not be unique to any partisan group, but all too human.

Is every Republican a miniature reincarnation of Boss Tweed? No. Is every Democrat a pregnant welfare queen? No. Is our country perfect? No. Do both stereotypes reflect a problem in our country which shouldn't be allowed to get out of hand? Yes. Does one's position in society allow one to exploit one loophole rather than another? Yes. Can we outlaw self interest, prevent people from advocating what is best for them? No.

Anyway, seems worth saying.

[Eric the Green]

(09-05-2017, 05:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: These dudes are spouting many talking points I have heard on "Right Wing" talk radio and read on "Right Wing" forums.

The whole "Blacks voting mostly Dem means being on the Dem plantation" meme, for instance. Hey look, I'm happy to acknowledge Black Conservatives. But the fact is, most Blacks are not Conservatives. There are reasons.

The truth is, in the main, the GOP is the party of White Men. The stats are abundantly clear on this point.

Absolutely clear.

[Eric the Green]

(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

[Eric the Green]

(09-06-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 08:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What's your (the liberal) view of the world? Is it realistic or dream like?

Good questions.

In many ways, I strive to be one of balance.  You have to be realistic, yet calling yourself a Whig you can't let the basic Enlightenment values go.  Democracy, human rights, sharing risks and costs, helping one's fellow man, all that fits in.  A government works for the common welfare, not for the few.

There is also a notion that there is always a rich elite, that no matter how much they have they want more, that they always strive to control the government, and that only occasionally will the many get upset enough to contest the rich getting richer.  Often in the sequence of S&H Anglo American crisis, a new elite favoring a new technology will align with the working guy to push Whig values.  This is not coming together well this time around, at least not yet.

Nast's vile stereotype of Tweed might stand as a base for how I am ready to view the rich and few as natural enemies of the working many.  I do remember when our high school band doing an exchange concert placing me with a richer family.  It was a tradition, giving members of one band and chorus an opportunity to meet their opposites.  "Oh, let's go visit my father's hanger, and tour his collection of historic airplanes."  No one was as fat as Nast portrayed them, or Marx explained them.  Still, there is an assumption that there are traditional historic bad guys, tempered by an impression of how ordinary the seemed to be, or at least how ordinary they could look on the surface.

I guess Reagan's vile stereotype of the black pregnant welfare queen, treating government generosity as a way of life, might stand opposite Nast's Boss Tweed.  Balance means not getting too obsessed with either, yet trying to take the precautions to prevent the worst abuses coming from anywhere.

Regarding war, I am personally concerned with Powell's questions.  If we are going to go in, let there be well identified goals, a way to achieve them, and a way out.  Bush 43's war demonstrated how much resistance a sole superpower and wannabe neo colonialist will meet, the problems with insurgent war, and how easily unintended consequences leak in.  In short, I am very dubious about foreign intervention.

And yet containment, the domino theory, isn't entirely bogus.  You don't want to give autocratic governments a free and easy expansionist path.  The choices aren't trivial and easy.

And there is the basic balance.  We have a huge division of wealth, which implies the ability to increase taxes.  One party pushes military spending, the other domestic.  Yet, if our military is to be of a certain size, shouldn't they be funded well enough for proper maintenance and training?  Do we want the rich getting richer?  Can we afford a floor, something like UDHR 25's protection so we won't let our own slip below a certain level of basic food, clothing, shelter and health care?  

I don't think I need explain or defend the basic liberal view on most of that.  For the most part, I'm leaning blue.

And the above is before getting into the urban - rural divide.  I’m afraid I can’t give you a short answer.  Please accept the basics, ask questions, and re-read a few of my old posts.

(09-05-2017, 08:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: As a general rule, I don't have issues defending my values because most people are able to identify them and share them and don't attack them. I spend more time brushing off liberal stereotypes (both vile and ignorant generalizations) than I do defending values.

I might go a step further.  As a liberal in Massachusetts, I seldom have to brush off stereotypes or defend values.

This forum seems to have different rules.  It seems you are supposed to test values, to push against others.  Conversations that involve strange values and vile stereotypes are far more common than in real world.

This almost makes me reluctant to answer your question.  I expect strawmen.  I half expect someone to come in and say no, I lie, all liberals believe (insert absurd vile easily defeated argument here) and (insert the defeat of the easily defeated argument.)  The idea that the opposition might have though things out and be fighting for worthy cause can seem strange to many people.

Do you (or does anyone else) have an equivalent set of opposing values?  Can you critique my values honestly without going into strawmen?

And then, the way you asked the question reminds me of...

Ted Kennedy Wrote:And someday, long after this convention, long after the signs come down and the crowds stop cheering, and the bands stop playing, may it be said of our campaign that we kept the faith. May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again. And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:

I am a part of all that I have met
Tho much is taken, much abides
That which we are, we are–
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

Agreed, and that speech is a landmark. PBS has used it to promote their American Experience show for decades now. The positive Uranus and Neptune levels of values-memes, as I call them, are still basic in many ways.

[Warren Dew]

(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

It doesn't imply that at all.

Rather, the argument is that without guns in the hands of the populace to keep the government in check, the government would become increasingly totalitarian.

"Law and order" and "rights" are not naturally aligned; they are often in opposition.  Government tends to value "law and order" even if it means trampling on "rights".  It's only individuals that value "rights".  Without the power to resist government by being armed, those individuals will have no way to protect "rights" and they will be trampled on by the government.

[Eric the Green]

(09-05-2017, 09:59 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 08:10 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 07:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 05:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: These dudes are spouting many talking points I have heard on "Right Wing" talk radio and read on "Right Wing" forums.

The whole "Blacks voting mostly Dem means being on the Dem plantation" meme, for instance. Hey look, I'm happy to acknowledge Black Conservatives. But the fact is, most Blacks are not Conservatives. There are reasons.

The truth is, in the main, the GOP is the party of White Men. The stats are abundantly clear on this point.

True, I'd say that most blacks aren't Republican voters or Conservatives as you say and the stats are abundantly clear on that point. I was born a white American and there ain't much I'm able to do about that or able to change about that fact. I'm not going to darken my skin, discard my heritage or my values in order to relate and identify with you or any other black person. I'm sure  the average black American's values aren't much different than my values.

Uh,  some cream has hidden coffee.  Some coffee has hidden cream.  

Cream with hidden coffee here ...

Funny, ha ha! I don't know how accurate those tests are; where do you draw the line regarding nationality? At what generation? Go back farther and we're all the same anyway.... We're ALL Africans.....

With me, I know my ancestry going back to thrice great all the way around; no coffee. However, my great great great grandmother was simply known as Mrs. A. Lincoln (married to Abraham's distant cousin), with no other info, so (ironically perhaps) you never know. Those people in my family tree came from the Ohio Valley, so not that far away from the plantations; one never knows....

[Eric the Green]

(09-06-2017, 12:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

It doesn't imply that at all.

Rather, the argument is that without guns in the hands of the populace to keep the government in check, the government would become increasingly totalitarian.

"Law and order" and "rights" are not naturally aligned; they are often in opposition.  Government tends to value "law and order" even if it means trampling on "rights".  It's only individuals that value "rights".  Without the power to resist government by being armed, those individuals will have no way to protect "rights" and they will be trampled on by the government.

Yeah, that's another crazy theory upheld on the right and the extreme left too. No, government is not held in check by an armed populace. How often has the supreme court ruled to protect our rights because armed men were standing outside with guns pointed at them? How many times has congress or the legislature voted to lower taxes and regulations, protect voting rights, or uphold the rights of workers and consumers because activists were pointing guns at them? No, the government and the police protect our rights. If they don't (and yes they violate our rights too often), then black panthers or militias do not straighten them out. And shooting them doesn't make them behave either. Only a politically-active population (and that means movements and not just "individuals") can keep our government in check. That's what's missing, because too many people vote for politicians who trample on our rights, or don't vote and don't speak up. And--- black lives matter.

[David Horn]

(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

To add a little fuel: Australia is as 'Wild West' as we were when we were fewer on our continent, yet they seem to do just fine with much more prohibitive gum laws -- laws they put in place after a major incident in 1996. So to answer C-X's question: all the rest of them.

[David Horn]

(09-06-2017, 12:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

It doesn't imply that at all.

Rather, the argument is that without guns in the hands of the populace to keep the government in check, the government would become increasingly totalitarian.

"Law and order" and "rights" are not naturally aligned; they are often in opposition.  Government tends to value "law and order" even if it means trampling on "rights".  It's only individuals that value "rights".  Without the power to resist government by being armed, those individuals will have no way to protect "rights" and they will be trampled on by the government.

If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws.  I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many.  How about Canada?

[Classic-Xer]

(09-06-2017, 12:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

It doesn't imply that at all.

Rather, the argument is that without guns in the hands of the populace to keep the government in check, the government would become increasingly totalitarian.

"Law and order" and "rights" are not naturally aligned; they are often in opposition.  Government tends to value "law and order" even if it means trampling on "rights".  It's only individuals that value "rights".  Without the power to resist government by being armed, those individuals will have no way to protect "rights" and they will be trampled on by the government.

I'd say that the vast majority of Americans value law and order.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-06-2017, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 12:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

It doesn't imply that at all.

Rather, the argument is that without guns in the hands of the populace to keep the government in check, the government would become increasingly totalitarian.

"Law and order" and "rights" are not naturally aligned; they are often in opposition.  Government tends to value "law and order" even if it means trampling on "rights".  It's only individuals that value "rights".  Without the power to resist government by being armed, those individuals will have no way to protect "rights" and they will be trampled on by the government.

If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws.  I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many.  How about Canada?

Why are so many American states able to have broad freedoms and liberal guns laws? I assume that the American people are better, more capable and more trust worthy than the people in Canada? I'd like to know why you feel so comfortable and safe in your cozy blue home while surrounded by an armed/pro gun population.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-06-2017, 01:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

To add a little fuel: Australia is as 'Wild West' as we were when we were fewer on our continent, yet they seem to do just fine with much more prohibitive gum laws -- laws they put in place after a major incident in 1996.  So to answer C-X's question: all the rest of them.

How hard would it be for Australia to be turned into a fascist state? How many battles would the fascists have to fight and win? How many fascists would be needed? I know one thing, there isn't enough fascists, socialists and communists in America to defeat the 60 plus million Americans who voted for Trump.