Gun Control? How about gun control for the Pentagon?

[Christopher O'Brien]

[Yeah, "gun-violence" ... What about claims of increased levels of birth defects as a direct result of DU usage in Fallujah and elsewhere in Iraq? Should we care? Or the mounting levels of "collateral damage" being splattered around remotely-piloted drone attacks elsewhere on the ME? Its a brave new world inside the global village of —chris]

Article HERE:

"... DAs, governors and the White House have all agreed that gun violence is wrong, when are we going to start talking about troops and bombs and drones? You think American weapons are a problem in the US? Take a look at what American weapons are dong outside the country.

In Newtown, shooter Adam Lanza's weapons killed twenty kids, six teachers and his mom and shocked the nation. As Robert Dreyfuss recently pointed out here, American weapons have killed hundreds, probably thousands of kids in Afghanistan. In that one country alone, all sorts of people have US weapons. (The sales are good for the US economy, even if the weapons are used with some regularity against Americans.) Afghan soldiers carry US guns. So do some of the former Mujahadeen “freedom fighters” the Army’s up against. (The United States sold them guns when the freedom they were fighting for was from Soviet, rather than US occupation.)

US troops carry US guns too, of course. Last March, an army sergeant used his to methodically slaughter sixteen civilians, including at least nine kids in their homes in southern Afghanistan one Sunday morning.

And then there are those drones..."

REST of the Article HERE:

 

[Muadib]

In America, nothing is ever a problem until it hits white suburbia. Nobody gave a shit about crack or heroin until it started showing up in the pockets of white suburban school children, then it was an epidemic and we needed a war on drugs. Nobody gave a shit about inner city gun violence, which has been going on for at least a couple of decades now, until kids started shooting up schools in white suburban neighborhoods. Now we need a plan to end gun violence. You never heard about either of the examples I mentioned, except as special interest pieces on your local news or in your local newspaper when it was confined to the inner cities, but now that it's struck at the heart of white America, it's the beginning of Armageddon. We could've started working on a solution to this problem decades ago, but we just didn't give a shit. We don't care about what goes on in our own inner cities, much less the world at large, until it shows up at our front door.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Nobody gave a shit about inner city gun violence, which has been going on for at least a couple of decades now, until kids started shooting up schools in white suburban neighborhoods.

That's entirely true. Well, entirely true in the exaggerated sense you meant it. As you mentioned, special interest types have cared since the 70's. There's a less than outwardly evil reason for that, though. The Inner City is an extremely small portion of the general population.

White people also happen to be the vast majority of the population, as far as that aspect goes. When something happens to minorities, by definition special interests are pretty much the only people who are going to make a stir. If something is outside the scope of perception of the majority, and special interest groups have a reputation for melodrama and sensationalism, that majority typically never learn much about it. It's short sighted, misanthropic, and ignorant for the majority to ignore or shrug off the problems of the minority, but it's also mathematically and sociologically inevitable.

When the stuff finally works its way into the suburbs, which often takes a great deal of time (lending to the inclination the majority has for ignoring such problems), it has also worked its way into the majority perception. It is now a majority problem. It can't be ignored, because it's a part of majority witness. The majority learns, first-hand, what they were unwilling or unable to learn previously. This is when the problem becomes real, and real problems require solutions.

When the majority is concentrated on a problem, it behooves the media to adhere to that problem and build programming around it. The media is ultimately about entertaining and informing the majority, as that's where the most income can be collected. This is also true of the governmental bodies, even though it shouldn't work that way as we're not a true democracy (we're a constitutional republic, which means even the minority are supposed to be represented and protected). The nobody you are referring to in your expression is the majority.

It sucks, but all just kind of makes sense. Until science brings us true-to-life superheroes, inner city problems are always going to go unaddressed by anyone but special interests. The minority will always be just under the radar of the majority, whether they want to be, or not.

 

[Muadib]

The minority will always be just under the radar of the majority, whether they want to be, or not.

While this is true of inner city minorities now, one wonders what the future will look like, pretty soon whites will be the minority:

US set for dramatic change as white America becomes minority by 2042 | World news | The Guardian

Obviously, this could change based on the rate of immigration or fluctuations in the birth rate, but I wonder if our coverage of things like inner city violence will change based on the emergence of a new ethnic majority or if things will remain the same simply because most news networks are owned by and cater to white people.

While it's true that it makes sense sociologically and mathematically, it would behoove us to pay closer attention to what happens in areas like the inner city, not only because it "sucks" that the white majority doesn't get concerned about problems until they show up on their front door, but because if we did we could preempt said problems from ever showing up in the first place.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Obviously, this could change based on the rate of immigration or fluctuations in the birth rate, but I wonder if our coverage of things like inner city violence will change based on the emergence of a new ethnic majority or if things will remain the same simply because most news networks are owned by and cater to white people.

They cater to white people because they're the majority. If they were owned by aliens, they'd still cater to that majority -- that's where money lives.

I don't think the ignoring of the inner city will change, though, regardless of what race is the majority. The inner city will always be a minority. What was once called "white flight" is now a multicultural occurrence. Suburbs are becoming more and more diverse as racial population changes take place. In addition, the closer to a majority a group becomes, and the more those groups are exposed to certain benefits of suburban living, the easier it is for that group to gain access to sociologically empowering things like higher education, high wage occupations and general economic influence.

Suburbs aren't havens of privilege and influence simply because they are predominantly white; they're havens of privilege and influence because they typically have extremely high property and municipal taxes. From that income, suburbs are able to put together better schools, better social programs and even better beautification programs (all which drive the property value, and the taxes, ever higher). People from these types of environments are relatively better suited for college, social competition, and personal financial management. There are obviously exceptions, but it's undeniable that suburbs can afford luxuries and enhanced amenities that the inner city, and even rural areas, just can't, which provides suburban citizens with an advantage in society.

Whether or not suburbs are predominantly white because whites are already privied to privilege becomes moot when you consider that the population is shifting. The people living in the suburbs, regardless of race, will still have the socio-economic advantages, and they'll always outnumber the groups populating the inner city and rural areas of the country. Given those inherent advantages to suburban living, suburbia will always be the primary focus of media and government.

While it's true that it makes sense sociologically and mathematically, it would behoove us to pay closer attention to what happens in areas like the inner city, not only because it "sucks" that the white majority doesn't get concerned about problems until they show up on their front door, but because if we did we could preempt said problems from ever showing up in the first place.

The problem is that most of these types of problems are actually beyond pragmatic control. You can't actually control guns and drugs, all you can do is make an effort. Weapons and substance abuse have been sociological problems since the dawn of civilization. During "white flight," people actually believed they were going to create a second society, cut off from all the inherent problems that come with modern living. That's part of what motivates the suburban majority's ability to ignore these problems -- they're problems of the old civilization. People are subconsciously aware that these things are beyond control, in any civilization, so ignorance is comforting while it's possible.

The only thing you can really learn by paying preemptive attention to the problems of the inner city, or the rural areas, is that problems of these kinds become epidemic in areas with low income. The only way to fix that is to make sure that nobody is low income. That's not really possible.

Dude who shot up the school was just a fucking maniac. You get maniacs in all walks of life.

 

[Muadib]

The problem is that most of these types of problems are actually beyond pragmatic control. You can't actually control guns and drugs, all you can do is make an effort.

Right, and if we would have made an effort with these problems earlier, instead of seeking comfort in ignorance, we might have prevented some of these specific tragedies from ever happening in the first place. We might not have, but I definitely don't think it's pointless to try. The idea that inner city problems aren't everyone's problem just doesn't hold up. We've seen their problems become our problems consistently, guns and drugs are just two examples, there are many more. My only point is, some lives may have been saved had we made an effort at controlling these problems earlier.

 

[stonehart]

Just for a point of interest:

Where I live we have extremely tight gun control laws on what you can and can not have.
We also have a very tight gun licensing system.

Now the up shot of this is that in our history as a nation we have had only one mass shooting and only one large family murder suicide.

We can own guns and I do, guns don't kill people its the messed up nutter on the other end that kills people.
Now I am not saying that all gun violence can be stopped, we all know that is not possible, but we can mitigate the type and number of weapons and we can also keep guns to a certain extent out of the hands of those who should not have them. Having said all that if you criminalize guns then only criminals will have them as the old saying goes,and that seems to happen.

We still have some gun violence but it is not all that common here at all.

Then again if you look at New Zealand geographically it is hard to get contraband items into here, this means that we do not have a proliferation of automatic weapons and hand guns here as they are strictly controlled or outlawed.

Our police do not carry guns here they carry tasers, but we do have what we call the armed offenders squad (much like the US S.W.A.T) that get called out if the situation is beyond that of the everyday officers.

Gun control can work, but right now looking at the US I do not think your problem is gun control as I think the current violence is more a symptom of some greater problems that have existed for some time.

Also with a government that looks from the outside to be hell bent on curbing as much personal freedom and privacy as possible I am not sure allowing them to start disarming the general population is in your best interest.

Just saying.

 

[pickles]

Well, I think the other part of it is, we don't see mass shootings of schoolkids in the inner city -- other than daily banger violence. White people aren't to blame and shouldn't feel guilty because a mass-violence event happened close to their homes as opposed to downtown.

The other part is something that leftist sociology professors at the school you paid too much to attend will never tell you: Violence in the inner city is internally generated and executed (although inevitably white folks are blamed for this somehow). The stories that cause us to shudder out in the rest of the (normally civilized world) are brought to those environments from the outside. Now, you can say that sometimes these people grew up down the street or what have you, but they're also 9/10 times self-imposed outcasts from society. In the eyes of many, the perpetrators were on the fringe and never existed in any meaningful way to begin with.

This aspect of normal civilization is relevant. We expect violence in the inner city. We do not out here. To read the implied narrative, some of you think that people out here don't care -- or cause in some tangential "institutional racist" way violence to occur magically just out of our view, like there's a magical racist honkie force field up. It never ceases to amaze me when people talk about white folks "all of a sudden" caring, when the groups involved in daily violence in the city rarely care about themselves; except for when they can cash in by blaming a company, cop or individual for alleged racist activities, explaining away all their issues.

No, it's because we're largely the producers, the contributors, the earners -- the ones that enable the city in most cases to not look like actual warzones -- which left to the devices of many of their residents would inevitably become. The places we live look nice, the folks polite, our public areas destinations you feel safe in with your kids. That's why the world revulses in horror when things happen to "white people."

 

[Burnt State]

This aspect of normal civilization is relevant. We expect violence in the inner city. We do not out here. To read the implied narrative, some of you think that people out here don't care -- or cause in some tangential "institutional racist" way violence to occur magically just out of our view, like there's a magical racist honkie force field up. It never ceases to amaze me when people talk about white folks "all of a sudden" caring, when the groups involved in daily violence in the city rarely care about themselves; except for when they can cash in by blaming a company, cop or individual for alleged racist activities, explaining away all their issues.

No, it's because we're largely the producers, the contributors, the earners -- the ones that enable the city in most cases to not look like actual warzones -- which left to the devices of many of their residents would inevitably become. The places we live look nice, the folks polite, our public areas destinations you feel safe in with your kids. That's why the world revulses in horror when things happen to "white people."

A couple of points here: the history of white people is the history of imperialism, colonialism, slavery etc. and their privilege is a historical one. Their entitlement is a protected one. This is not the same for Aboriginal or Black populations for example. So yes, their is a magical racist honkie force field in place, and it is the force of history, a force that continues to define so many of our cultural touchstones. So when, say young Black men are killed in the inner city, the media is not surprised as the meme of 'Black man as criminal' is a familiar media portrayal. But when 'innocent white youth' are murdered it is deemed a tragedy and outrage follows. It's a historical narrative of privilege and entitlement that is being followed.

As far as not fighting against drugs or guns, I have to say that Muadib has made the critical point. To not work against these elements is to surrender. If we do not struggle to continue to support all youth to make better choices for themselves and their families then there is no moral centre to hold onto and we damn each other to walled gardens, higher fences and more security guards instead of working to build real communities. Yes, this is where the Zimmerman example comes in to validate all of the above points. We need less suspicion and judgment of our youth and more compassion and understanding.

 

[pickles]

I see your university brainwashing is complete, young Jedi LOL

Fact is, regardless of history from 200 years ago, today the reality is minorities do more to harm themselves than anyone else.

And really, guns aren't the issue. It's the user of those guns. I could, in theory, kill someone with a ballbat, but I don't see mass protests wanting to ban Louisville Sluggers.

 

[Burnt State]

I see your university brainwashing is complete, young Jedi LOL

Fact is, regardless of history from 200 years ago, today the reality is minorities do more to harm themselves than anyone else.

And really, guns aren't the issue. It's the user of those guns. I could, in theory, kill someone with a ballbat, but I don't see mass protests wanting to ban Louisville Sluggers.

Obviously you have your own biased opinion and few facts will help to alter it. What's important about history is that it can teach you a lot about power dynamics at work in society. Maybe reading some James Baldwin might help? But I don't think you're interested in facts based on all three of your statements.

However you are free to remain content in your own smug satisfaction that those minorities will just 'do themselves in' while white youth accidentally shoot their siblings with "My First Rifle." I understand they come in pink for those who prefer their gun proliferation to be gender stereotyped.

I hope that kind of social violence never visits anyone you know. But when people die by guns, and worse for personal gain, you might consider who all is profiting right now from the same culture of death that invented slavery, genocide and, most recently, "My First Rifle."

 

[Muadib]

Obviously you have your own biased opinion and few facts will help to alter it. What's important about history is that it can teach you a lot about power dynamics at work in society. Maybe reading some James Baldwin might help? But I don't think you're interested in facts based on all three of your statements.

However you are free to remain content in your own smug satisfaction that those minorities will just 'do themselves in' while white youth accidentally shoot their siblings with "My First Rifle." I understand they come in pink for those who prefer their gun proliferation to be gender stereotyped.

I hope that kind of social violence never visits anyone you know. But when people die by guns, and worse for personal gain, you might consider who all is profiting right now from the same culture of death that invented slavery, genocide and, most recently, "My First Rifle."

You really have to wonder about these people who act like everything happens in a vacuum. Yes, I'm sure, 100's of years of slavery, followed by 150 years of racism, bigotry, lynchings and whatever else has nothing to do with it. Poverty has nothing to do with crime, American Imperialism has nothing to do with why the rest of the world hates us and so on, and so on. It's all just one big leftist conspiracy from all of those damn lefty professors! The world would be one giant utopia if everyone was a conservative, I suppose. I guess God in his infinite lolwisdom just made everyone but white conservatives fucked up. So much for intelligent design.

 

[pickles]

You really have to wonder about these people who act like everything happens in a vacuum. Yes, I'm sure, 100's of years of slavery, followed by 150 years of racism, bigotry, lynchings and whatever else has nothing to do with it. Poverty has nothing to do with crime, American Imperialism has nothing to do with why the rest of the world hates us and so on, and so on. It's all just one big leftist conspiracy from all of those damn lefty professors! The world would be one giant utopia if everyone was a conservative, I suppose. I guess God in his infinite lolwisdom just made everyone but white conservatives fucked up. So much for intelligent design.

Slavery was a global phenomenon, sold to white settlers primarily by other Africans. Besides, the only people still bringing this up today -- when it's not a factor and hasn't been for some time now -- are race hustlers and leftists seeking their own agendas. It's interesting that these issues -- despite being a global phenomenon for centuries -- are only kept in everyone's face here in the States, because there's money to be made and votes to be gained through continued social division.

The left really has no place in this country. They hate America, do everything to fundamentally alter everything the Founders wanted it to be, and continue to brainwash our youth in institutions and in gerrymandered political districts -- all for personal gain and votes. Without victims, where would liberalism thrive? If everyone were conservative, these discussions wouldn't arise, because there wouldn't be a permanent protected victim class like there is today.

But these people grow up brainwashed by ex-radicals, reinforced by college professors who surely can't be altering history and facts because they're spending up to six figures for their "education," right?

I had the advantage of finishing my degree later in life, through the lens of any experienced adult rather than a young moron that didn't know shit from shoeshine. I identify the things you say in your posts (and you're not alone, don't fret) reflected nearly verbatim from people paid to ram this crap down students' throats. As a communications major, unfortunately these classes were mandatory, so I got to witness the nonsense first-hand. You're a lemming; deal with it.

It's evident what's going on -- and often discussed in the media -- and that was in a smaller private school, not a modern public institution. I can only imagine the outrageousness going on in leftist institutions like Columbia and the like.

 

[Muadib]

Slavery was a global phenomenon, sold to white settlers primarily by other Africans. Besides, the only people still bringing this up today -- when it's not a factor and hasn't been for some time now -- are race hustlers and leftists seeking their own agendas. It's interesting that these issues -- despite being a global phenomenon for centuries -- are only kept in everyone's face here in the States, because there's money to be made and votes to be gained through continued social division.

The left really has no place in this country. They hate America, do everything to fundamentally alter everything the Founders wanted it to be, and continue to brainwash our youth in institutions and in gerrymandered political districts -- all for personal gain and votes. Without victims, where would liberalism thrive? If everyone were conservative, these discussions wouldn't arise, because there wouldn't be a permanent protected victim class like there is today.

But these people grow up brainwashed by ex-radicals, reinforced by college professors who surely can't be altering history and facts because they're spending up to six figures for their "education," right?

I had the advantage of finishing my degree later in life, through the lens of any experienced adult rather than a young moron that didn't know shit from shoeshine. I identify the things you say in your posts (and you're not alone, don't fret) reflected nearly verbatim from people paid to ram this crap down students' throats. As a communications major, unfortunately these classes were mandatory, so I got to witness the nonsense first-hand. You're a lemming; deal with it.

It's evident what's going on -- and often discussed in the media -- and that was in a smaller private school, not a modern public institution. I can only imagine the outrageousness going on in leftist institutions like Columbia and the like.

Really, racism isn't a factor and you base that on what? Your vast experience as a racial minority? Of course it isn't a factor for you, you're white. What you're doing is typical conservative buffoonery at its finest, you imagine that your personal experience is prototypical of everyone in this country's and it just isn't so. I had a radical professor, so everyone had radical professors, I've never experienced racism, so there is no such thing. You need look no further than the constant flow of anti Obama crap spewing out of the mouths of members of your own party to see that racism is alive and well in this country. Is that the only reason to dislike Obama? No, of course not, I disagree with him on many things myself, but let's not pretend that when you have a right wing Tea Party campaign that's called: Put the White Back In The White House, that there's no such thing as racism. Racism is just a US phenomenon? Really? Are you high right now? Go tell that to genocide victims in Africa, but I suppose that wasn't a result of white imperialism either, right? It's bullshit, plain and simple.

Furthermore, your assertion that the left somehow hates America is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard in my entire life. I certainly don't hate America, I love this country, but to pretend that it doesn't have problems is just nonsensical. I want to improve this country, not tear it down. It's not about being a victim, it's about NOT allowing ourselves to be victimized. It's funny that in the mind of the hardcore conservative, nobodies problems but their own are valid or worthy of attention. Everything else is just those damn whiny liberals and the fact that you actually believe that this society would be a utopia if we were all just like you proves just how delusional you really are. You're a moron, deal with it.

 

[starise]

I think there is some truth to both sides of most debates and issues in politics and this is no different. Each side seems to love calling out extreme examples that don't necessarily line up with all the facts.

We only have two large political parties in the US and they are big tents and getting bigger by the minute. We have so much diversity among those two parties that to single out the most extreme examples on either side is merely setting up an enemy to attack. It's the easiest thing to do. Make an enemy, demonize them and feel smug in the attack. In reality I think most of us want to make it better but we have different methods and plans to make that happen.

In terms of an actual positive event occurring as the result of such exchanges, you might as well forget it. Especially when the other side is always the devil.

Compared to other groups this is a small group no matter what your perceptions are. Politics is what it is. The vote counts but not as much as you might be led to believe. Will a discussion here change the momentum of this country? It might change a few minds, but really, you might as well bail the ocean.

If you enjoy debate that's great. Debate sometimes settles issues, sometimes it makes things worse. It might make a person feel better to vent their ideas. It might make a person feel worse. Usually the end result is pretty predictable.

Gun control has been kicked around for so long. Freedom is freedom, slavery is slavery. You either can do something or you can't. I say fight where it counts. Go to where it will make a difference if you are that passionate about it. Issues are seldom settled unless something is made to happen or allowed to happen and that doesn't progress or stop based on discussion with those we disagree with.

America has become too strong to sway when she makes a choice unless forced to do so. Trying to stop the deployment of drones through a debate on a forum with maybe 10 regular participating members is peeing into the fan.

 

[Muadib]

I think there is some truth to both sides of most debates and issues in politics and this is no different. Each side seems to love calling out extreme examples that don't necessarily line up with all the facts.

We only have two large political parties in the US and they are big tents and getting bigger by the minute. We have so much diversity among those two parties that to single out the most extreme examples on either side is merely setting up an enemy to attack. It's the easiest thing to do. Make an enemy, demonize them and feel smug in the attack. In reality I think most of us want to make it better but we have different methods and plans to make that happen.

In terms of an actual positive event occurring as the result of such exchanges, you might as well forget it. Especially when the other side is always the devil.

Compared to other groups this is a small group no matter what your perceptions are. Politics is what it is. The vote counts but not as much as you might be led to believe. Will a discussion here change the momentum of this country? It might change a few minds, but really, you might as well bail the ocean.

If you enjoy debate that's great. Debate sometimes settles issues, sometimes it makes things worse. It might make a person feel better to vent their ideas. It might make a person feel worse. Usually the end result is pretty predictable.

Gun control has been kicked around for so long. Freedom is freedom, slavery is slavery. You either can do something or you can't. I say fight where it counts. Go to where it will make a difference if you are that passionate about it. Issues are seldom settled unless something is made to happen or allowed to happen and that doesn't progress or stop based on discussion with those we disagree with.

America has become too strong to sway when she makes a choice unless forced to do so. Trying to stop the deployment of drones through a debate on a forum with maybe 10 regular participating members is peeing into the fan.

I actually agree with you Starise, the polarization of opinion in this country is absolutely to its detriment and not its benefit. At the same time, I can't just sit back and say nothing when I see what I deem to be ignorant nonsense like the posts I've been responding to in this thread by Mr. Pickles. If we can change a couple of minds at a time, it's only a matter of time until rights are wrong and grievances are redressed.

Even though I don't like or agree with what he says, he has every right to say it and I would stand up and defend that right, because free speech is essential to a free society. I wouldn't classify myself as an extreme liberal, in fact, I agree more with the conservative position on the gun issue, to a certain degree. I don't think that guns should be illegal or banned, they are tools, you might as well ban hammers, and history has shown that prohibition simply does not work, but to not recognize that gun proliferation plays a major role in gun violence in this country, just as poverty also has its role, is sticking your head in the sand.

The older I get, the more I identify with what Chris Rock said about the left/right paradigm: No decent person is one thing, on some things I'm conservative and others I'm liberal. On crime, I'm conservative, on prostitution, I'm liberal. Everyone wants to be part of a gang, I'm conservative, I'm liberal, instead of taking an issue, letting it swirl around in your head a bit and then making a judgement that isn't based on party lines and both sides are equally guilty of this at times.

 

[Burnt State]

The founders were the privileged slave owners and thank goodness everyone gets a chance to vote (well except for those with hanging chads) and not just those who rig the vote as we see in countless other supposed democracies. The truth is you're just voting for the flip side of the same coin, thankfully one that believes that healthcare is something everyone deserves to have. Regardless, where would all those tea party conservatives be without their votes?

Now the thing about university is that it teaches both critical thought and factual history. And the fact is the founders included slave owners. The history of black slavery and Aboriginal genocide are not paltry things or "crap" to be rained down onto anyone. These horrific histories carry a price and the trauma that has been passed down is called intergenerational trauma. Suicide rates, addictions, health issues and a lack of strong education create repeated cycles of depressed social success and these can be traced back, because these are the family memories. Would you care to swap those and explore how will your lineage might have done if they were brought over here in chains, in ships piled with dead bodies.

Critical thinking taught me that the best response to historical inequity is to redistribute power and privilege because we know that societies with fewer social gaps in class and wealth have less crime, are more profitable and more educated. So maybe you missed out on a few classes that might have given you less of a rose tinted, gated community set of glasses manufactured by the ads you see about your race on tv celebrating luxury and success. Unfortunately, that's not the same history as those who experience racism on a daily basis. Would you like to take on that extra stress and see how your well being, your health, and your family does?

I know a large segment of north America believes that if you go west you will find your gold, and you shouldn't be taxed on it, but that pipe dream is for the selected ones who have privilege and that's reality. Stop watching so much tv and listening to all that conservative radio - bad for the brain and helps you to see better.

 

[stonehart]

Critical thinking taught me that the best response to historical inequity is to redistribute power and privilege because we know that societies with fewer social gaps in class and weath have less crime, are more profitable and more educated. So maybe you missed out on a few classes that might have given you less of a rose tinted, gated community set of glasses manufactured by the ads you see about your race on tv celebrating luxury and success. Unfortunately, that's not the same history as those who experience racism on a daily basis. Would you like to take on that extra stress and see how your well being, your health, and your family does?

I know a large segment of north America believes that if you go west you will find your gold, and you shouldn't be taxed on it, but that pipe dream is for the selected ones who have privilege and that's reality. Stop watching so much tv and listening to all that observation radio - bad for the brain and helps you to see better.

If you hit that nail on the head any harder Burnt State its going to snap LOL.

Universal health care and education are not going to bring about the end of your nation, in fact far from it they will improve it no end.

Why?

Its simple, a healthy well educated nation is a productive one, the higher the education level of the nation the lower the level of poverty and as a net up shot the productivity is much higher.

 

[pickles]

And if anyone thinks rationed health care will help "everyone" I would advise as your first treatment an insulin shot to counter the vast amounts of Kool-Aid you've been drinking.

Look at Great Britain. Ugh.

Please remember that only one party in this country -- although rapidly careening towards both again in an effort to purchase votes -- really thinks that "redressing past wrongs" will keep them employed long term. Politics relies on social strife to have a reason for existence; it's the mechanism that is designed to work those things out through legislation. The key is, that legislation needs to focus on the limitations presented to those governing bodies through the Constitution. Executive orders and forcing votes without reading bills *ahem Obamacare* until they're forced into "law" does not fit this paradigm. Adams, Madison and Jefferson are turning in their graves as we speak.

Back on topic -- gun control is, like everything else, about proper education and respect for our rights as enumerated in the Constitution. Everything else is special interests and increased government control, something I suspect no one here relishes the thought of.

BTW -- Please people, don't confuse Republicans with Conservatives. History shows they aren't always synonymous.

 

[starise]

I think we are at the point of critical mass in this country. The polarization is so profound that it is almost impossible to get anything accomplished.

Like you Muadib I have certain reasons why I have sided with the party I do. It isn't a cut and dried clean package either because I disagree with a lot of the things my party does. I think they have done some bone headed things in the past but I have also seen some real lack in the other side. I don't want to discourage those who want to become involved in an issue because little things can make a difference. Probably not a critical difference but it might make things better in the end.

I see so much hypocrisy in both parties. On the democrat side we see an all out publicity effort to convince the general public that they are the party for the working man. They promise not to rub shoulders with big business and claim to be fair yet they are filling their pockets with corporate and special interest money. At least the Republicans don't mislead people into thinking that they aren't taking corporate monies. On the Republican side, they preach the sanctity of life and family values but in real life some of them are more messed up than some of the democrats. We have Christian Democrats and openly gay Republicans so I see a convergence of the lines. It's almost like an NFL football team. The Eagles are a Philadelphia PA. team but there are people from all over the states playing on the team. Why do we like one team or another? Please don't say it's a solidarity you feel with your home state. If that's true then you are deluded at some level.

The democrats have worked hard to sell themselves as a party that goes above and beyond for the African American yet The US president( Abraham Lincoln) who did more for the black man than any other was a Republican. I know things have changed in some cases, and from political term to term things change. The lines can blur. One thing is for sure when something is made into a law no matter how screwed up it is we are usually stuck with the decision for life. Very occasionally we back out of a really bad choice but large policy decisions stick.

I am probably most like a Republican/Independent in my beliefs but I think Republicans and Democrats are screwing us. Since I think the family is the pillar of society I am for keeping the family strong. If we loose the family we loose the nation. I am for life. I don't think a baby is a "fetus". So many people are running around crying save the whales, save the owls, and I think we need a voice to save the unborn. I believe in freedom and I have never had a problem with guns. I see no harm in the govt placing some limited use of guns into law but this won't solve our problems. Mainly attempting to make sure that guns only get into the hands of responsible people. I think any law abiding citizen should be able to go out and buy a gun if they want to after having learned how to properly and safely use one.

As far as all of the other trivial personal stuff goes like smoking weed or drinking or walking around naked. Getting into brawls and road rage. This can all cause trouble . I avoid drugs but if someone else wants to do that it's their business. If you want to worship at the church of the orange tadpole that's your business. If you want to denounce all church that's your business. I have opinions on all that stuff but I don't generally try to force them on anyone. I trust people to have the freedom to make their own choices good or bad and we all live with those consequences.

I think that at some level socialism eventually becomes unfair and empties our treasury. If I am a successful businessman I should be entitled to my money and I shouldn't have to pay any more than the same percentages everyone else pays. If it's 15% then 15% of whatever I made. Why should I be penalized for my hard work and success? If I'm a bum who never wanted to work why should I get a free handout from the government? This is how I see heath care reform. I think we needed reform but if reform means that those who work hard pay for the bums how is that a fair shake? As others have said, if we introduce yet another huge bureaucratic monster into our economy two things will happen. The quality of our healthcare will suffer and it will bankrupt the govt. especially if it is based in a liberal socialist agenda. When you get to 65 years old and need that heart surgery, it might either take too long or be a rush job by a bad surgeon. In either case it might make the difference whether you live or not.