Open Carry by Wulfenstar

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

The policies though, I think are not american interests, but the interests of the international bankers who have a stranglehold over the US govt because they control the US dollar through the private corporate consortium of the Federal Reserve.

The US is in the unenviable position of not having its own currency. We have to borrow dollars from the FED, which we have no real control over. Sure, there's the ritual appointment of the FED chair by the president, but it's even less meaningful than the queen's ritual appointment of the prime minister. She has no real control, and neither do we.

I still think that the US doesn't generally go to war unless there is some resource generally worth fighting over. It was the oil of course in the case of Iraq.

Re; the Queen's powers shouldn't be underestimated. We had a Prime Minister removed by her representative once.

Quote:
That said, I can't think there's any support here, I'm not sure what the US would do if Australia were to be attacked, we did nothing for Taiwan, and it's looking like we won't do much for S. Korea. I think that might be behind Australia's new alliance with Japan I've been reading about. Is that a big story there?

I'm pretty sure the only time we'd be attacked was if something big was going on in the world war arena - like last time - in which case the US might come to our aid if it was in their strategic interests (as it was last time). People like my father who remember the war did feel like there was a huge debt to repay the US - (otherwise we'd all be speaking Japanese) especially since they was a sense we'd been sold down the river by the British, but I think by Iraq even his generation was tiring of it.

Australia's currently looking more towards the China trade alliance - our PM speaks fluent Mandarin. I think we need to be very, very careful - they are not a democracy, they do not play by the rules - their government is secretive and vicious, and the potential to be very very powerful. More than being militarily invaded, I think more likely we'll wake up one day with China having bought half our land, and owning most of our resources.

Back to the topic: I find the idea of open carry astonishing and a little ridiculous - I mean how dangerous is your country? You make it sound like downtown Bagdad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 3:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Back to the topic: I find the idea of open carry astonishing and a little ridiculous - I mean how dangerous is your country? You make it sound like downtown Bagdad.

Depends on where - some parts of Baltimore or Detroit, say... friday night on a full moon?
MORE dangerous than downtown Baghdad - while you're not likely to catch any military grade ordinance, there's a damn lot of small stuff flying around.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 5:31 PM

Quote:
I still think that the US doesn't generally go to war unless there is some resource generally worth fighting over. It was the oil of course in the case of Iraq.

Huh, you have more faith in us than I do ;)

Quote:
Re; the Queen's powers shouldn't be underestimated. We had a Prime Minister removed by her representative once.

We have some rampant conspiracy theories about this one. I just meant that the queen isn't really going to veto Cameron's appointment when he gets elected, just like Obama didn't veto Bernanke, but the board of directors of the Federal Reserve, a private corporation, themselves all bankers and not all americans, elected Bernanke in a board meeting. Then Obama nominated him. That last part was a formality, not a real power. The FED is independent of DC, but the reverse is not also true, neither has much to do with the US, except that they rule us, with a well cloaked not yet iron fist.

Quote:
I'm pretty sure the only time we'd be attacked was if something big was going on in the world war arena - like last time - in which case the US might come to our aid if it was in their strategic interests (as it was last time). People like my father who remember the war did feel like there was a huge debt to repay the US - (otherwise we'd all be speaking Japanese) especially since they was a sense we'd been sold down the river by the British, but I think by Iraq even his generation was tiring of it.

Hmm, you're govt. did enter into an alliance with Japan quite recently, it was big news here. There was some quote to the effect that "The US could not be trusted to intervene in times of crisis any more" I don't remember who specifically said it, but it certainly made headlines here. I thought it was totally fair too. I think after our negligence in Taiwan and Korea, our intervention is in doubt. In a WWIII, yes, I'd agree, that would be the situation, a united Islamic force against a western one, Indonesia could represent a threat to Australia in such a situation. They US might be of assistance there, since we seem to go to war against muslims a lot.

Quote:
Australia's currently looking more towards the China trade alliance - our PM speaks fluent Mandarin. I think we need to be very, very careful - they are not a democracy, they do not play by the rules - their government is secretive and vicious, and the potential to be very very powerful. More than being militarily invaded, I think more likely we'll wake up one day with China having bought half our land, and owning most of our resources.

The alliance with Japan covered here was strictly military, Australians in Japan, the Japanese in Australia, exchange of military technology. Made sense to us of course. I think it's safe to say that Americans probably hold Japan in a higher regard than any other nation, at least in the top ten, top five, are there any dissenters except for Hero? I think Hero wants to nuke Japan, but outside of that, I think the US is united, and has been since the 1850s on this with the one exception of the madness of US and Japanese imperialism, I don't think either of us acted admirably. I'm somewhat pleasantly surprised that anyone else things so

Quote:
Back to the topic: I find the idea of open carry astonishing and a little ridiculous - I mean how dangerous is your country? You make it sound like downtown Bagdad.

At times, in places, actually, it's pretty bad, but I don't think that open carry helps, I think it hinders. America is just a vast varied empire, we share a language and basic culture, but radically different social structures. Australia, I know, is just as big, and less populated, there's something about the US that's hidden right under the surface. I always feel like we're one wrong move away from breaking into 50 separate countries. Some of the old tensions are pretty strong too, more than the race thing. The north-south thing, that's real. The east coast west coast thing, that's just sibling rivalry. NY city vs. Upstate NY, that's two different planets ;) I'm sure you have that where you are as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 7:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Hmm, you're govt. did enter into an alliance with Japan quite recently, it was big news here. There was some quote to the effect that "The US could not be trusted to intervene in times of crisis any more" I don't remember who specifically said it, but it certainly made headlines here.

/
I'm surprised that anything that happens here made headlines in the US. Surprisingly, it wasn't big news here. Or maybe because it was about that bastard Howard, our former PM, I tuned it out.

Quote:
I thought it was totally fair too. I think after our negligence in Taiwan and Korea, our intervention is in doubt. In a WWIII, yes, I'd agree, that would be the situation, a united Islamic force against a western one, Indonesia could represent a threat to Australia in such a situation. They US might be of assistance there, since we seem to go to war against muslims a lot.

Well again - if it was in US interests - you'd probably help out. Fair enough as well, really. Indonesia is considered to be the only potential threat, given their population size vs ours - but Australia is currently on good terms with them - Their military is usually kept busy sorting out their own people. Their government seems pretty pissed off about the islamic extremists as much as anyone, they don't do much good for much needed business investment and tourism.

Quote:
At times, in places, actually, it's pretty bad, but I don't think that open carry helps, I think it hinders. America is just a vast varied empire, we share a language and basic culture, but radically different social structures. Australia, I know, is just as big, and less populated, there's something about the US that's hidden right under the surface. I always feel like we're one wrong move away from breaking into 50 separate countries. Some of the old tensions are pretty strong too, more than the race thing. The north-south thing, that's real. The east coast west coast thing, that's just sibling rivalry. NY city vs. Upstate NY, that's two different planets ;) I'm sure you have that where you are as well.

We have differences, but they're not as big as in the US, apparently. reading posts from americans on politics, immigration and religion, it's clear that there are some huge, gaping ideological divisions over there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 6:27 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Heinlen, first off, was a science fiction writer, which should be all that needs to be said. But second, he was a mysogynistic militarist. I've heard others argue that's not true; dunno where they get the impression he was neither, given his love of inserting beautiful women and sex all over the place and his constant harping on militaristic tactics. That's my opinion, and I've read everything he ever wrote (tho' many years ago)."

Hello,

At the risk of sounding sexist, I will dare to offer a blanket statement here: Most men enjoy entertainment involving beautiful women, sex, and military action. None of these things indicts the writer.

I admire Heinlein because his women tended to be strong, intelligent, and independent minded.

I also admire him because he had a strong belief in personal freedom and personal responsibility.

His works were almost universally a tool to examine society by pulling it apart and studying its pieces. Frequently after doing so, he would advocate for whatever he perceived to be a 'better way.'

In short, the man did what the best sci-fi writers can ever hope to do. He entertained and enlightened via the medium of his craft.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 5:07 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Ummm... Niki? I don't remember ANYONE in this thread advocating that EVERYONE should be openly carrying weapons. The only one who's mentioned that eventuality is you.

I *DID* point out that there are places where every household is required by city ordinance to have a firearm, and that crime is generally far lower in those places, but that's a far, far cry from "everybody must be armed at all times".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 5:47 AM

Quote:
Heinlen, first off, was a science fiction writer, which should be all that needs to be said.

Nik, um, this is a sci-fi forum. Would be sorta like attacking Reagan at the republican national convention. Furthermore, people here possibly knew Heinlein, I know lots of people who knew him, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if someone here did. I once made the mistake of criticizing Clinton to someone who knew him, I know someone else here in town who knows him as well, which is just another way of saying "Audience." jes try to bear it in mind.

Second, Heinlein was a politician, life long. He started working for Upton Sinclair, and his journey from socialism to conservatism is intersting, but his writings are always insightful. You will not win many arguments by attacking him, in any venue.

MD,

Quote:
I'm surprised that anything that happens here made headlines in the US. Surprisingly, it wasn't big news here. Or maybe because it was about that bastard Howard, our former PM, I tuned it out.

Yeah, lots of stuff, down to the Solomon Islands conflict. East Timor was huge news over here.

Quote:
Well again - if it was in US interests - you'd probably help out. Fair enough as well, really. Indonesia is considered to be the only potential threat, given their population size vs ours - but Australia is currently on good terms with them - Their military is usually kept busy sorting out their own people. Their government seems pretty pissed off about the islamic extremists as much as anyone, they don't do much good for much needed business investment and tourism.

I've known some indonesians might take issue with the image of 'their people' but I know what you mean. Jakarta really inherited an empire from the Dutch, many peoples of which would not care to be part of the union, especially given the recent history, I would expect you do see a fair number fleeing the govt, but no, I wouldn't expect to see an invasion of Australia under any normal circumstances. The only was I could see it happening is if they had an arms supplier, and a war had the effect of uniting the people in an Orwellian fashion.

My expectation would be that the union of indonesia would fall apart under any sign of weakness. People flock to islamic extremism where it seems like the lesser of two evils, and the only way to quell it is to not let that situation develop. Indonesia's civil war, militant crackdowns and economic collapse were big news here too.

Quote:
We have differences, but they're not as big as in the US, apparently. reading posts from americans on politics, immigration and religion, it's clear that there are some huge, gaping ideological divisions over there.

There are huge divisions, but our political parties are pretty much identical. There's not a lot of difference between Obama and Reagan, who he considers his hero, nor was there much difference between Bush and Clinton.

I do worry that there are too many people in the Clinton govt, including the Clintons, in the Obama govt, but I do NOT think that this is Obama's choice. It's almost a coup attempt by the Clintons. The whole situation is just unfortunate... If this country collapses, I'll blame the Bushes and Clintons rather than Obama, unless he does something colossally stupid.

But yes, the division among the people is pretty extreme. They'd probably range from establishing a socialist state to completely abolishing the govt. There are a few supporters of the war here, but it's not a major source of contention. Alas, there is little *opposition* to the war within govt., which is a symptom of the corruption.

Our "Federal Reserve" banking system has been a principle political topic for the last couple of years, as our economy collapses.

People have generally a very favorable view of Australia, which politically everyone would probably agree that we consider "very politically conservative." Australians are very nice, and travel a lot, and that helps the international image. Rupert Murdoch might be your sole detractor :) Honestly, I don't think Murdoch is all that bad, I know it says a lot about the US press to say "At least he has some journalistic integrity." If you take that at face value, you know how "fair and balanced" the rest of the US press is. Things are changing as we get more of our news online, but not the media, our media is still "More corrupt than FOX" but people online get better information. The only snag is that we are become *more* polarized because people go to information sites that agree with them.

I was surprised here that a number of people here have Televisions, not something I run into where I am, I thought it was a dead medium, but then again, this is a site devoted to a TV show, though I never did get a straight answer from people on how many people actually watched this show on TV. I suspect nearly everyone saw it on DVD instead.

Have you seen Farscape?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 8:19 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I saw some of the Firefly episodes on television before the series was cancelled. I saw the remainder of the episodes after cancellation via internet download. Finally, I purchased the DVD when it came out.

Farscape never appealed to me deeply, and I'm not sure I could articulate why.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 1:26 PM

It's a different kind of experience. The world and creatures are much more rich, if it were a storyline on paper, it wouldn't work as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 1:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's a different kind of experience. The world and creatures are much more rich, if it were a storyline on paper, it wouldn't work as well.

I was catching Farscape for a while, but they quit showing it on my local affiliate. I kinda loved it; the acting was pretty horrific, but the ideas - especially Moia, the living ship - were pretty damned fantastic.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 3:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

My expectation would be that the union of indonesia would fall apart under any sign of weakness. People flock to islamic extremism where it seems like the lesser of two evils, and the only way to quell it is to not let that situation develop. Indonesia's civil war, militant crackdowns and economic collapse were big news here too.

That's what keeps their military busy!

Quote:
People have generally a very favorable view of Australia, which politically everyone would probably agree that we consider "very politically conservative."

LOL> Actually if the US knew more about Australia, they'd probably consider us pretty socialist. We did have lots of nationalised industry and services until about 20 years ago, when the governments been selling them off bit by bit. Gotta tow the IMF line, don't you know. But we still have a strong public health and welfare system and a raft of laws that would have libertarians spinning on their heads. The current government is a Labor Government, allegedly left of centre.

We were perceived as politically conservative because our last PM, Howard climbed so far up Bush's a*** that it's probably that he still holidays there from time time. He was one of the most conservative PM's in our history.

When I read forums where a lot of Americans post, the right views feel extreme to me, very extreme. Most wouldn't get much air play here - for example, pretty much everyone supports some form of public health - it's a puzzle to us why the US is so reistant.

Quote:
Australians are very nice, and travel a lot, and that helps the international image.

Ah ha. Perhaps a stereotyped image, is it racism when they are favourable. Personally I find a lot of Australians abroad terribly objectional - bit of a cultural cringe thing. Currently we have terrible press in India for being a racist country because of a so called spate of attacks on Indians - so you know, it varies.

Quote:
Rupert Murdoch might be your sole detractor :) Honestly, I don't think Murdoch is all that bad, I know it says a lot about the US press to say "At least he has some journalistic integrity." If you take that at face value, you know how "fair and balanced" the rest of the US press is. Things are changing as we get more of our news online, but not the media, our media is still "More corrupt than FOX" but people online get better information. The only snag is that we are become *more* polarized because people go to information sites that agree with them.

Most of us were pretty happy that you decided to adopt him - because we sure as hell don't want him.

Quote:
Have you seen Farscape?

I didn't watch it religiously - but I enjoyed bits and pieces of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 4:45 PM

MD

I just wrote a very long post, and it was deleted :(

Yes, we meet a lot of Australians, esp. those of us who travel (you know us because we can pronounce the name of your country) In spite of the fact that we are bombarded by australian media, not just fox, but that fox Nicole Kidman, and Mel Gibson who was actually born only 15 miles from my house, there are still americans who say "Austraylia"

Our country is far more socialist than you realize:
We have nationalized:
Banks
Insurance
General Motors

But before that
All Passenger Railways (except some inner cities)
the postal system
Schools
Most universities
veterans hospitals, but all hospitals are under the AMA, in fact, everything is under some regulatory agency or other, you can't do anything without a stamp of approval from big brother.

Part of the resistance to national healthcare is that we have state healthcare which works find and the national federal govt. screws everything up.

This was before a long rant that ended in me saying I thought there was really very little reason to have a federal govt. at all and if it came to a vote...

So, I proposed this vote, so here goes

I propose that we dissolve the federal govt of the United states of American and leave in its place 50 independent nations under an American Union similar to the EU, and bound to the US constitution but no other law but what the states make, with the following agreements

1. We dissolve congress, the supreme court, and the executive. Obama can remain as our representative to the world. We can still elect a different one.

2. The US military should be remanded back to the states national guards, replacing a single military with an alliance of mutual protection similar to Europe's NATO

3. No nations could go to war without the consent of the other member states. Any out of line state would have to fear the other 49.

4. Anyone could vote themselves in or out of the alignment by their own democratically elected legislature, Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa and Saipan are all free to join of course, bound by their own constitutions.

5. Trade and travel between states would remain unfettered, but states would have the power to levy tariffs on imported goods, as per the constitution.

6. All income taxes would be abolished as per the constitution, State taxes would be per their own constitutions

7. The Federal reserve system would be abolished, along with it, the national debt, which would be the sole responsibility of the member banks of the federal reserve who could easily pay it themselves.

8. In addition to the common currency, the US dollar, each state would be able to issue its own currency, such as the Ohio Dollar, and at any point, if it seemed that there was a weakness in a local or national currency, these could be separated by a vote of the local state, or a judgment of all states against one states currency.

9. The would be no foreign wars outside of those which are with the consent of all states sending troops and at the invitation of the local allied govt. calling on America for defense. Any unilateral action without invitation or provocation would be reason for dismissal from the union.

10. States would be free to make their own laws as long as those are in accordance with the US constitution, which does not ban the legalization of bud.

11. There would be no border checks or restrictions on travel or relocation, as per the EU, but people should be apprised of the fact that bud may not be legal in states they travel to, and they may be deported back to their home state.

12. All federal agencies would be broken up by state or dissolves including but not limited to the CIA, FBI, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, FEMA, etc.

13. All states would have the power to levy tariffs on any foreign imports, to help stablize their economies and protect local industry.

14. Universal agreements and accords would be signed to keep states from acting to the detriment of others as has been done in Europe, such as wildlife and environmental accords.

15. National welfare systems which currently give only 1% of their aid to lower income citizens would be broken up among the states who could then set their own welfare policies.

Okay, so I'm putting it to a vote. The federal govt. currently costs the average american citizen $10,000 a year to be a member of, and borrows several times what it recieves in taxes and currently is bound to pay a debt of $40,000 per person, for which it will tax every last corner of your world, for debt that it owes, for wars that it started and fought without our consent, given that we were given no option to choose non-war platforms. But this is debt that they owe, not us. I say let them have it, the washington politicians and the Federal Reserve member banks can get off our backs, they are perfectly capable of paying their own debts, they have no shortage of cash, there's no reason for us to pay the national debt, or that incurred in the mortgage crisis. Sure I'll add one more item to the list: States will have the right to seize any foreclose homes held by major international financial concerns and tax derivative traders, and either auction the properties or use them as housing for the poor.

Votes? Do we stay one nation, indivisible, for the security of American interests, promotion of democracy internationally and univeral protector?
Or do we shove off this federal govt., and become an alliance of independent states, and free ourselves from foreign war and overburdening debt?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 4:59 PM

Oh

The other part of my long post was about Farscape.

It's great for the worlds and creatures, visually, and the main character romance is no worse than Buffy-Angel, it's just difficult.

The first season is a bit of a trudge, weak, but the show is a lot of fun, and should be taken in the spirit of Dr. Who.

Actually, the premise is derived directly from a BBC show "Blake's Seven" which was weak on acting and budget, but a very refreshing break from star trek and star wars because here was an escaped prison ship filled with characters with no moral compass whatsoever.

And that's what Farscape is, it's the '90s version of the same story, with just much better special effects, and some of the actors are quite good. Browder always falls flat for me, same on SG-1. But this is definitely worth watching. It's easily better than 90% of the stuff recommended to me on this board. It's much like Buffy in that "it's a lot of fun, and the through story is not as solid as the individual episodes."

People who liked this show also like BSG SG-1 Firefly T:SCC Dr Who Babylon 5, Lexx ;). That said, I love Lexx, Farscape is a better show.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 5:05 PM

AG05

My worry would be that shrugging off a federal gov't and becoming an Alliance of nationstates, while possibly freeing us from foreign war, might invite not-so-foreign war. Should Mexico get uppity and decide they want the Southwest back, these independent nation-states would have to fight together. I foresee severe unity of command issues, not to mention rows about troop committment from the uninvolved states. Right now, such a fragmented system works for the EU and NATO, but neither have faced large- scale combat on their own soil.

This is not the biggest problem with this concept, but rather the one that jumped out most clearly at me.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 5:14 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I loved B5, BSG. I drooled at the ladies of LEXX, but consider the show to have been largely worthless. Perhaps it would have had slightly more merit on HBO or Showtime. Don't like Stargate anything much, or Andromeda, and sadly, though many love it, I never gelled with Farscape.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 5:32 PM

NATO works. If it didn't, Russia would have conquered the US a long time ago, and Russia is far more up to the task than Mexico. I think that fear is what has kept us beholden to our current overloards for so long, but think it's not well founded.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 5:44 PM

AG05

NATO, and a metric ass-ton of nuclear missiles worked. Do you really think a few Leo's Challengers and Abrams on the ground in the Fulda Gap is what held back Ivan? (assuming Ivan ever seriously considered offensive action in W. Europe to begin with).

Which brings up another good question. What WOULD we do with that metric ass-ton of nukes we still have lying around?

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 6:11 PM

NCBROWNCOAT

We tried that once. It was called the Articles of Confederation and all it accomplished was the different states constantly snipping at each other and nothing getting done. Then we decided we needed something different, the Constitution.

It's not perfect and I'm glad it takes a lot to amend it but it's the best we have.

I personally don't support open carry and NC has concealed carry by permit. You have to attend a training course and a records search of both criminal and mental health records are done.

I'm a notary and I end up processing some of the paperwork because a notarized signature is required for the record searches.

It seems to me that lately more women are getting concealed carry permits. Most of the time it's both husband and wife, especially if they operate a business where they have to transport lots of cash.

I recently did one for a couple that live in a rural area. They were the victims of an attempted home invasion by druggies(likely meth addicts-a big problem here) And the wife was home alone at the time. Fortunately they had a strong lock and all they had was a badly damaged door.

It made them realize that it would take the sheriff at least 10-15 minutes to get to their house once a 911 call was made. So they both got concealed carry permits.

Personally I agree with the philosophy that the best defense is situational awareness, which I get a lot of practice being a bank employee and my desk is smack in the middle of the lobby, just feet from the teller line.

Keep out of trouble if you can, run away if you can, talk your way out of it if you can and as a last resort, resist with all your might. The same philosophy taught at my daughter's Tae Kwon Do classes when she took them.

I don't think the US will ever have the restrictions that Australia and Great Britain have. For one thing, the criminals already have the guns and restrictions would only hurt those that legally possess guns. Criminals will get them illegally or not turn them in.

I would like to see gun safety as an optional course in high school. I was taught respect for firearms by a Grandfather and Dad that were avid hunters. Most young people these days have no exposure to guns and have no idea how lethal they are and the damage that they can do or how to be around them safely.

http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 7:35 PM

The EU is a bureaucratic nightmare, from all accounts - it's just another layer of government - with elected reps and laws - the whole lot. I don't know if there would be in any advantage in swapping what you've got for what they have.

I think by removing fed government and the constitution you could lose a lot of your power on the world arena and be open to warring between states and tyrannical governments - even at state level. I've read far too much speculative fiction for it too feel like a good idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 28, 2009 3:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT Point of correction

Quote:
but all hospitals are under the AMA:

The AMA is a PRIVATE organization. It does not control hospitals. That is done by the Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation, which is ALSO private organization. The (confusingly-named) "State Medical Boards", which have to do with licensing doctors to practice in any particular state, are also private.

All of these organizations are private entities. They are not funded or run by any government entity, state. local or federal.

www.ama-assn.org
www.fsmb.org/
www.jointcommission.org

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 28, 2009 5:25 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

One might surmise that once the government gives power to a private institution, such that it can determine who does business and who doesn't, then that institution becomes part of the government, and thus no longer merely a private enterprise.

In fact, I'd suppose it becomes the worst of both worlds. Government power and private self-interestedness.

A match made in hell.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 28, 2009 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

One might surmise that once the government gives power to a private institution, such that it can determine who does business and who doesn't, then that institution becomes part of the government, and thus no longer merely a private enterprise.

In fact, I'd suppose it becomes the worst of both worlds. Government power and private self-interestedness.

A match made in hell.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

That ALMOST sounds like a rant against the government "privatizing" and using contractors, since giving contracts to people like Blackwater (now Xe, an allegedly inert gas) would be tantamount to giving them "government authority"...

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 28, 2009 6:27 AM

MD,

Oh, the EU is all kinds of nightmare: It's essentially a self appointed dictatorship. I just meant keeping the agreements they have, here, and losing the imperial federal govt.

The thing is, the EU is headed from independent states towards an empire, quite intentionally.

The US is already an empire, and I think we should scale back. Schools, hospitals, roads, etc. the things which "govt." takes care of are taken care of by the state govts. which are self supporting. Yes, they get aid from the federal govt, but that aid amounts to about 1/4 of what they PAY IN to the federal govt.

The thing is, New York would be a nation of 17 million with a GDP of over a trillion, it would be a first world nation. All of our economic problems come from us being part of the union. This is true as far as I can tell for every state except for Texas.

But the freedom of movement and trade laws, universal agreements on the environment and defense, we could keep those without keeping a federal govt. The states of the US are completely self sustaining, and need nothing from Washington, all we get is taxes, orders, wars, and debt.

I've lived here a long time, I don't think a civil war is a possibility, I think it's pure fantasy. Besides, I said nothing about getting rid of the constitution.

Sig,

In name only. Reality: the AMA is the biggest labor union ever. It's the major obstacle to efficient and effective medical care.

Mike,

Xenon tetrafluoride

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 28, 2009 6:31 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Well, it would be an equal concept if Congress was contracting Blackwater to make declarations of war on its behalf.

(Cue Military Industrial Complex rants here)

'Privatizing' regulatory agencies is a bad idea, since they have the singular incentive of regulating themselves into a monopoly and adjusting standards not for the public good, but for the good of themselves.

It's the difference between contracting someone to take orders, and contracting someone to give orders. One is safer than the other.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 28, 2009 6:46 AM

Quote:
I would like to see gun safety as an optional course in high school. I was taught respect for firearms by a Grandfather and Dad that were avid hunters. Most young people these days have no exposure to guns and have no idea how lethal they are and the damage that they can do or how to be around them safely.

Optional heck, oughta be part of the curriculum under social studies, starting with the muskets with which we won independence, complete with demonstration of loading and operation (this always draws good interest if well done by a period actor) up to and including the M4 Rifle used by our current military being demonstrated by them as well, complete with related safety instruction.

Whether we wish to admit it or not, firearms are a significant part of our history and heritage, and it's only natural that we should include them and then use the opportunity to teach proper safe handling and respect of them instead of fear, which leads to the forbidden fruit temptation, same way it does with sex when we play peek-a-boo with that.

Most of these kids today get their ideas about firearms from the street, or hollywood, neither of which is a good instructor, and one of my oldest friends lost his roomie last year due to said roomies lack of proper training, a pointless and shameful loss caused in part by his fear of being caught having a weapon, which is as far as Baltimore police are concerned, or at least act, a far greater crime than murder... grrr.
So he did not seek training or competence, and it indirectly killed him.

Comes to it, shop class teaches you how to safely use and operate some pretty dangerous equipment you'll probably never own yourself - and being that I see firearms as a tool, I really don't see the difference, or the reason for the panicked screaming against it such a suggestion tends to draw, save that those doing the howling seem to have this rabid fear of people able to defend themselves...

And that causes ME to look at their intentions with horrified suspicion.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 28, 2009 6:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

ANTHONY- One might surmise, but one would be wrong. Did you look into any of the links I provided???

Quote:
Joint Commission: Founded initially in 1917 as the American College of Surgeons by Dr Franklin Martin. In 1951 The American College of Physicians (ACP), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the American Medical Association (AMA), and the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) join with the ACS to create the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH), an independent, not-for-profit organization whose primary purpose is to provide voluntary accreditation.

They BILL for their services, and also receive funding from non-profits for special studies.

Quote:
Also, there are in fact other American-based healthcare accreditation organizations working within the U.S., all of which are completely separate to the Joint Commission. These include the American Osteopathic Association, or AOA, Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (HFAP), Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF), Community Health Accreditation Program (CHAP), the Accreditation Commission for Health Care, Inc. (ACHC), Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC), the "Exemplary Provider Program" of The Compliance Team and the Healthcare Quality Association on Accreditation (HQAA), who are recognised in the state of Ohio. HFAP is older than the Joint Commission, having been in operation since 1945. On September 26, 2008 the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) granted deeming authority for hospitals to DNV Healthcare Inc (DNVHC, Inc.) DNVHC is an operating company of Det Norske Veritas (DNV), an international company that has been operating in the U.S. since 1898.

Where the government connection comes in is that Medicare accepts Joint Commission, DNVHC Inc, and the National Committee on Quality Assurance accreditation as meeting Medicare standards; in other words, accredited institutions are able to bill Medicare for health services.

Working in a laboratory, and having organized an approval program myself, I'm familiar with MANY private organizations (A2LA, UL, Green Seal, ASTM) which provide accreditation services. There is nothing strange, unusual, or nefarious about the concept; different accreditations are available for different (mostly commercial) purposes- with different acceptances by government entities. (often, no interaction at all)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 28, 2009 7:18 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Signy,

I was under the sore misconception that one could not practice medicine or provide health care services without the permission of those institutions.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:34 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Frem, I still disagree that there's been any "hysteria" shown in this thread. For myself,

Quote:
if you consider another person to be suspicious simply because they're openly packing - would you not have considered them suspicious otherwise ?

doesn't hold. In this day and age, someone I see carrying a gun openly WHERE I LIVE would be suspicious. There's no reason to carry a gun openly except to make a statement. In a dangerous area, I'd feel otherwise, in fact I might well accept that showing one is carrying a gun is a good deterrent. But those places are few, given all of America. That was my point.

Anthony: My remarks about Heinlen are based solely on his books, all of which I've read. And yes, it's sexist--but also true--that men like books with sexy women and war. Nonetheless, how many excellent sci fi books are written without sexy women? War, yes, but it's kind of intrinsic to sci fi that most of the books will be about conflict of one kind or another.

DT, I expressed an opinion, again, based on his books. I expressed a SUBJECTIVE opinion, and my gosh, if someone or other hasn't expressed a negative opinion of EVERYONE in politics (which is what RWE forum is about), well...they have. Some don't like it, some agree; end of story. I didn't know Heinlen was involved in politics, that makes him more interesting to me. But his use of women and battle techniques, etc., came across as mysogynistic and militaristic TO ME. End of story.

As to Heinlen, as I said, all I know is what he writes, and most of his books had sexy women in them. As to their being strong and independent--bearing in mind it's been decades since I formed my opinion on his writings--most of his women seemed to me to be ancillary characters supportive of the main, mail, protagonist.

Granted

Quote:
In short, the man did what the best sci-fi writers can ever hope to do. He entertained and enlightened via the medium of his craft.

I repeat: How many did it without resorting to lots and lots of sexy women? It's an indication of a mentality, TO ME.

Mike, given the topic was open carry, I assumed the discussion was about everyone's right to carry openly. Ergo: everyone, anyone, however many/few, 'kay?

Ago, I agree

Quote:
My worry would be that shrugging off a federal gov't and becoming an Alliance of nationstates, while possibly freeing us from foreign war, might invite not-so-foreign war.

that this is part of the reason I don't believe in separate states. Another part is that if each state were separate, some would suffer FAR more than others. Here in CA we've got it good--so we're "givers" to the government. Poorer states are the "takers"...it makes things more even. The possibility of in-state fighting would be increased by divvying them up, as a poorer state might resent a wealthier state next door. There are so MANY other differences in our country (which I agree in theory, is too big to be one country), I don't think it would improve things if we were separate "countries" as opposed to a lot of states gathered together.

Look at Europe; that's my best answer. Sure, presently it's pretty peaceful, but look at its past. I guess "look at Asia" would be a more current example, or the Middle East, probably the best. Many small states makes for more lack of unity than one big one.

All I can say to your concept, DT, is that I think it would fail miserably. I know you're hung up on "no federal government" and I understand your complaints about having one, but I think you're dead wrong, and there are so many arguments against each of your points that I'd go on forever if I tried to debate each individually. So let's agree to disagree; I think a central government is imperative to America's survival; you don't. I agree with NCB:

Quote:
We tried that once. It was called the Articles of Confederation and all it accomplished was the different states constantly snipping at each other and nothing getting done. Then we decided we needed something different, the Constitution.

It's not perfect and I'm glad it takes a lot to amend it but it's the best we have.

and Magon

Quote:
I think by removing fed government and the constitution you could lose a lot of your power on the world arena and be open to warring between states and tyrannical governments - even at state level.

By the way, I did reread the thread from the beginning, Frem, and I saw absoltely NO hysteria--one remark about going postal, which I didn't consider hysterical either. I think if you went back and re-read the thread and tried to be as objective as possible, you'd find the same. But you'd have to try as hard as possible to be objective.

As to my referring to "everyone" carrying a gun, I did it from the very beginning and nobody had any disagreement with the fact that I was discussing it that way. If anyone felt otherwise, nobody spoke up, so I assumed we were all talking about the same thing.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:40 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

just wanted to bump this

" just out of curiosity...

what are the laws in Pittsburgh like re this topic

just wondering with this, and the G20 protests going on

you have a bunch of folk packing at the protest, then the cops do something crazy.............................

we have already seen people carrying at the healthcare townhalls, but I think the G20 would be a escalation, with predictable results "

if a state has a open carry law, should there be exceptions in cases where the possibility of problems such as this would occur ?

If not then what are the advantages ?

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:42 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Well we can always just go along to get along.

Ignore whats going on, and hope it goes away.

*sigh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
just wanted to bump this

" just out of curiosity...

what are the laws in Pittsburgh like re this topic

just wondering with this, and the G20 protests going on

you have a bunch of folk packing at the protest, then the cops do something crazy.............................

we have already seen people carrying at the healthcare townhalls, but I think the G20 would be a escalation, with predictable results "

if a state has a open carry law, should there be exceptions in cases where the possibility of problems such as this would occur ?

If not then what are the advantages ?

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

I'm curious about this, too. My bet is that the same folks who would argue that you MUST let people carry at the Town Hall meetings would be dead set AGAINST people carrying at the G20 protests, even if all the legalities involved were identical.

And while people like PirateCat applaud using sound cannons and pain beams on "hippies" at G20, I doubt he'd feel the same about those very weapons turned against his tea-bagging buddies at the town hall.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:52 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

My question is... why are we allowing military grade weaponry to be used against our own people?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:56 AM

Quote:

Mike, given the topic was open carry, I assumed the discussion was about everyone's right to carry openly. Ergo: everyone, anyone, however many/few, 'kay?

It seemed that you were making a connection between "everyone" being ALLOWED to open-carry, and that equating to everyone actuallly DOING IT. That's a false equivalence. It's like saying that right now, because "everyone" (and I'll use that loosely, since it really doesn't apply under current U.S. laws) CAN legally own a firearm, that everyone DOES own one. It's demonstrably false.

It's as false as the gun-rights peoples' claims that if you try to put ANY conditions on gun ownership, you're trying to outlaw and seize EVERYONE'S guns. There already ARE conditions in place where you don't have the legal right to own a gun, but it's hardly true that NOBODY has the right.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
My question is... why are we allowing military grade weaponry to be used against our own people?

And that's a damned good question, too. But rather than try to meet that weaponry with a deer rifle and a molotov cocktail, try meeting it with a high-def video camera and a satellite uplink that streams it out LIVE on the internet. The very best weapon against tyranny is information.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:02 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mike: agreed. But given, I repeat, that the entire discussion went on until "everyone" was brought up, I think my point is valid.

And no, I ws NOT arguing that everyone SHOULD carry openly; I was arguing that if everyone COULD, that left the potential open for those whould SHOULDN'T be allowed to carry a gun around openly would be among them. So "everyone" includes "anyone"...do you see the correlation?

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:08 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Too many who "shouldn't" already do.

Im arguing that *I* have the right to backstop against them.

Btw... anyone here ever made a zip-gun?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:30 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Guru]
That makes me know that we we we we're doin
We had the right idea in the beginning
And and we just need to maintain our focus and elevate
We what we do we update our formulas
We have certain formulas but we update em (oh right)
with the times and everything y'know
So y'know the rhyme style is elevated
The style of beats is elevated but it's still Guru and Premier
And it's always a message involved

"The real... hip-hop"
"MCing, and DJing.. from your own mind, ya know?"
"I, I guess right now we should start the show"

[Guru]
Who's the suspicious character strapped with the sounds profound
Similar to rounds spit by Derringers
You're in the Terrordome like my man Chuck D said
It's time to dethrone you clones, and all you knuckleheads
Cause MC's have used up extended warranties
While real MC's and DJ's are a minority
But right about now, I use my authority
Cause I'm like the Wizard and you look lost like Dorothy
The horror be when I return for my real people
Words that split wigs hittin like some double Desert Eagles
Sportin caps pulled low, and baggy slacks
Subtractin all the rappers who lack, over Premier's tracks
Severe facts have brought this rap game to near collapse
So as I have in the past, I will bash
Droppin lyrics that be hotter than sex and candlewax
And one-dimensional MC's can't handle that
While the world's revolvin, on it's axis
I come with mad love and plus the illest warlike tactics
The wilderness is filled with this; so many people
searching for false lift, I'm here with the skills you've missed
The rejected stone is now the cornerstone
Sort of like the master builder when I make my way home
You know my steez...

"You know my steez" --> Method Man
"Let em know, do your thing God" "Keep it live"
"To the beat y'all" --> Flavor Flav

The beat is sinister, Primo makes you relax
I'm like the minister, when I be lacin the wax
I be bringin salvation through the way that I rap
And you know, and I know, I'm nice like that
Work through worldly problems, I got the healing power
When the mic's within my reach, I'm feelin more power
Stealing at least three minutes of every rap radio hour
It's often easier for one, to give advice
Than it is for a person to run one's own life
That's why I can't be caught up in all the hype
I keep my soul tight and let these lines takes flight
The apparatus gets blessed, and suckers get put to rest
No more of the unpure I got the cure for this mess
The wackness is spreadin like the plague
MC's lucked up and got paid but still can't make the fuckin grade
How many times are wannabe's gonna lie?
Yo they must wanna fry, they can't touch the knowledge I personify
I travel through the darkness carrying my torch
The illest soldier, when I'm holding down the fort
("You know my steez" --> Method Man)
You know my steez...

"Let em know, do your thing God" "Keep it live"
"You know my steez" --> Method Man
*repeat 4X with very last line modified as follows*
"The mic..."

On the microphone you know that I'm one of the best yet
Some punks, ain't paid all of their debts yet
Tryin to be fly, ridin high on the jet-set
With juvenile rhymes makin fake-ass death threats
Big deal, like En Vogue, here's something you can feel
Styles more tangible, and image more real
For some time now, I've held the scrolls and manuscripts
When it's time to go all out you be like, "Damn he flipped"
Now I'm sick, fed up with the bullshit
Got the lyrical full clip, giving you a verbal asswhip
Don't trip it's the gifted prolific one
Known as Bald Head Slick -- why is the press all on my di-dick?
My style be wilder, than a kamikaze pilot
Don't try it, I'm about to start more than a friggin riot
Styles unsurpassable, and nuccas that's suckas, yo
Them motherfuckers are harrassable
For I be speaking from my parables and carry you beyond
The mic's either a magic wand
Or it gets tragic like the havoc of a nuclear bomb
Then I grab your palm, no pulse you're gone
And if you thought we'd lose our niche in this rap shit you way wrong
I stay up, I stay on, shine bright, like neon
Your song's, pathetic, synthetic, like Rayon
Fat beats, they play on, want dope rhymes, put me on
Word is bond... you know my steez

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:32 AM

Quote:
In this day and age, someone I see carrying a gun openly WHERE I LIVE would be suspicious.

I don't comprehend that, I mean, I understand what you're trying to say - but it's never going to click in my head, it just comes so sideways to my thought process it just comes across as something like a divide-by-zero error.

I'd think no more of someone openly carrying a pistol as I would someone openly carrying a power drill, or T-square.

Quote:
there's no reason to carry a gun openly except to make a statement.

I disagree, it's REAL hard to CCW effectively when it's 96F degrees outside and you have something active to do, I mean, where you gonna put it ?
(This being kinda the reason for some of those horrific hawaian shirts I own, actually)

Sure, I see the point of not openly strapping when you COULD conceal it, but there are some times and places where it's not really very practical, and as such open carry would be preferable to not carrying.

Quote:
In a dangerous area, I'd feel otherwise, in fact I might well accept that showing one is carrying a gun is a good deterrent. But those places are few, given all of America. That was my point.

Thing is, doll, YOU don't get to choose when and where someone with ill intent will accost you - you can try, and very effectively I might add, to avoid it, to avoid the preconditions which lead to it, hell I happen to be right durned good at that myself, but the chance is there - just cause an area is mostly safe doesn't mean it's completely safe, same logic as not needing the spare tire for a trip to the store, but you take it anyways, don't you ?

Point of fact, it was my very LACK of ambivalence about that regarding wearing a helmet that saved my life in the accident which nearly killed me, it was just a quick trip to the store, along a "safe" route, to grab a pack of smokes, and BLAM...

As far as the hysteria factor, maybe it's the same difference of thought process I mentioned earlier in this post, but the automatic assumption of suspicion just cause someone is packing, complete with assumption of their motives and intent - that's what I am talking about, that the mere presence of a weapon would change someones inherent nature ?
I don't get that, I just don't, maybe I just ain't capable of understanding the argument, I dunno.

Consider this, take the sanest, kindest, most decent person you know, and then picture them with a weapon - does this change THEM, or change HOW YOU VIEW THEM ?

Why ?

That's the hysteria I am talking about, right there.
(On a wider scale, I am also including the social consciousness flipout, since we're discussing public reaction and whatnot)

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:43 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... it was just a quick trip to the store, along a "safe" route, to grab a pack of smokes, and BLAM..."

So, smoking is bad for your health ?

***************************************************************

The

made me do it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:46 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"So, smoking is bad for your health ?"

Yes it is.

So is being ambivalent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:47 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"So is being ambivalent."

Maybe someone else can unscramble what you mean.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Mike: agreed. But given, I repeat, that the entire discussion went on until "everyone" was brought up, I think my point is valid.

And no, I ws NOT arguing that everyone SHOULD carry openly; I was arguing that if everyone COULD, that left the potential open for those whould SHOULDN'T be allowed to carry a gun around openly would be among them. So "everyone" includes "anyone"...do you see the correlation?

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

Actually, Niki, I *don't* see the correlation. In fact, I see it from a somewhat opposite view, which I believe I laid out in my reason why *I* personally wouldn't be likely to open-carry: If you need a permit to do it, the act of doing it opens you up to be "hassled by The Man", i.e., made to produce your papers to show that you're allowed to do what you're doing. And woe be unto he who can't produce such documentation!

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:08 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Okay, Frem, let's try this: Your opinions come from your experiences, where you've lived, and you extrapolate from there. Ditto mine.

It's easy to avoid crime areas here, and I do. If I have to go through them, I do in my car and don't stop. There is NO place in Marin where I would worry to go at night. Any other place I have to go at night which I consider even slightly dangerous, I have my dog. That's all I'll ever need.

Now, HERE, if anyone walked around with a gun strapped on, it would be insane, even if it was legal. The cops would be following you around, for one thing, and people would look at you like you were crazy.

Ergo, that is how my opinion is formed. I've always lived in the Bay Area; 99% of the places here, that's the way it is. Nobody would go to Richmond, for example, and feel safe, but there are few places like that around here, or in Caifornia for the most part.

You've had a hard life and had your life threatened apparently numerous times. You see it differently. You stated the whole difference yourself:

Quote:
I don't comprehend that, I mean, I understand what you're trying to say - but it's never going to click in my head, it just comes so sideways to my thought process it just comes across as something like a divide-by-zero error.

I, on the other hand, CAN both comprehend and envision someone carrying a gun, concealed or otherwise, in a high-crime area, without difficulty. So if I CAN envision it without difficulty, and to you it's "sideways", who has the stronger prejudice, and perhaps whose view is more skewed?

Yes, I DO get to choose when and where someone is going to accost me. I choose it by where I go, when I go, how I carry myself, how observant I am, and most of all, by having my husky beside me.

And no, I don't consider anything here "hysteria"..."prejudice", "assumptive" maybe, but not hysteria, by a long shot. I see it as a debate between pro-gun, pro-open carry and either anti-gun or anti-open carry, period.

As to

Quote:
but the automatic assumption of suspicion just cause someone is packing, complete with assumption of their motives and intent - that's what I am talking about, that the mere presence of a weapon would change someones inherent nature ?

again you're missing the point. Of COURSE people would view someone carrying a gun with suspicion HERE...nobody does. That automatically makes their motives and intent suspicious...even if it were legal to do so. Nobody DOES, 99% of the people WOULDN'T, so it's only natural people would view someone who DID and wonder why.

A couple of people here have already said that, even if open carry were the law, they probably wouldn't do so because it would freak people out or make them feel uncomfortable. That's why...because 99% of the people in America don't walk around with a gun strapped to their hips...and where concealed carry is the law, they don't SEE them.

In a place where just about every kind of weirdness of look is accepted and just walked past without a thought, someone sporting a huge knife (I mean HUGE, many carry knives and I used to), a rifle or a gun stands out. Not a sword, as they'd just be viewed as on their way to the Ren Faire or a sci fi convention or something. It's about the society you LIVE in and how they perceive weapons, not guns per se.

I disagree that around here I'd need to carry one. We know where the dangerous places are, and stay away from them. Simple as that. We don't have shootings here except domestic violence or gang violence. We have FREEWAY shootings, but having a gun wouldn't do a damned bit of good there since the guy is up on a hill taking pot shots with a rifle. Nobody walking around most areas of Marin is ever in any danger from someone with a gun, it just doesn't happen. And IF YOU HAVE A BIG DOG, nobody's gonna mess with you anyway. That's my "weapon", if you will...it's fully accepted and keeps me from confrontation or victimization, which is the only place I'd need a gun anyway.

What I've been trying to say is, yes, if the sanest, nicest person I know showed up with a gun, I'd want to know WHY. Doesn't mean it would necessarily change my view of them, but it might, because IT'S NOT NECESSARY, so what would their reason be?

We've had one kidnapping in any of the areas I go in the thirty years I've been here. One. We've had invasions, robberies, domestic violence, but those all call for having a gun in your HOME, which I have no problem with. There used to be violence in the Canal, but even that's peaceful and has been for a long time.

Now consider this: San Quentin is in Marin County. When someone's sent to Q, their families often move into the County to be near them and visit. When they're released, they're released here rather than wherever they were arrested. So we've got criminals, but little if any crime. Most of their families move to Richmond, which is cheap, just across the Bay and has quite a bit of violence. I wouldn't walk through Richmond on a bet, especially at night, tho' I have to drive through it to go anywhere in the East Bay.

We've had a couple of shootings at the courthouse, a couple in 30 years. Does that justify carrying a weapon everywhere, all the time?

Are you beginning to understand? It's about where one would SEE someone packing; places where there is no need, it would stand out like a sore thumb, which would cause others to wonder WHY and be suspicious. Simple as that.

I don't mistrust someone carrying a gun, when there's a reason for it. I've been in more rural areas where people have been carrying rifles around me, I never thought twice about it. They're ranchers or farmers, and even then, it's been rare. Equally, I'd probably mistrust anyone carrying a gun elsewhere because I don't know them, and choosing to wear a gun publicly (unless it is common practice) IS a statement. If it's common practice, I'd take my dog if I had to, or just wouldn't BE there. It was done specifically in the two instances at Obama events...in fact in the second one, both interviewer and interviewee had set it up ahead of time, JUST to make the statement.

Am I getting through at all? The population on this board seems to have an equal number of people for whom guns are commonplace and/or who have lived in places they make sense. My statement is that in the VAST majority of places in America, there is no need for them and they would be viewed as out of place. That's all.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 1:26 PM

Quote:
Your opinions come from your experiences, where you've lived, and you extrapolate from there. Ditto mine.

It's easy to avoid crime areas here, and I do. If I have to go through them, I do in my car and don't stop. There is NO place in Marin where I would worry to go at night. Any other place I have to go at night which I consider even slightly dangerous, I have my dog. That's all I'll ever need.

Thanks for that, Nik - it DOES lend some perspective, at least to me. I've lived in farms and small towns, and I've lived in some REALLY bad areas, and I've lived on military bases, so I've always been around guns and been comfortable around them. I generally *don't* think twice about having one on me, but my wife gets freaky about it, because she was never around them before we met. So she gets uneasy, but she's come around a bit.

I think when it comes to firearms, you and I are just going to disagree. That's okay - you're still one of my favorite people here, and I'm very glad you found us, even if it took you a while to get here!

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Have just enough time for a quick comment: Thinking that more violence (or the threat of it) is the answer to a violent society is insane IMHO. Open carry would just give those carrying guns an itchy trigger-finger, and scare everyone else.

I don't care WHO you are: whether you're police or my neighbor, I see someone openly carrying a gun and I DON'T feel "safe"or "protected", I feel damn nervous. (Did I ever tell you about the time I almost got my head blown off by a cop in the dark by mistake? It was a "hot prowl" at MY house, and he thought I was the robber!)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:38 PM

AG05

And that right there is why I would opt for concealed carry if practical. There's no need for me to go upsetting strangers.

Now, if OC were an option and it was 110F outside, then you just might have to deal with it. I hate hawaiian shirts.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Have just enough time for a quick comment: Thinking that more violence (or the threat of it) is the answer to a violent society is insane IMHO. Open carry would just give those carrying guns an itchy trigger-finger, and scare everyone else.

I don't care WHO you are: whether you're police or my neighbor, I see someone openly carrying a gun and I DON'T feel "safe"or "protected", I feel damn nervous. (Did I ever tell you about the time I almost got my head blown off by a cop in the dark by mistake? It was a "hot prowl" at MY house, and he thought I was the robber!)

*blink*

That kinda thing, there... see.
The automatic assumptions.

Like hell I'd get an "itchy trigger finger" cause folk open carried, I done said I wouldn't, but of course the argument doesn't work unless you ignore that and go assumin folks motives and intent without regard to their own statements on the matter.

And I think I see where the disconnect between my concept and yours is, Nike ole girl...

Take EVERY mention of "gun" or "weapon" in here and replace it with "screwdriver" or "tool", and you will understand WHY my concept and yours ain't never likely to connect on this.

That's really, honestly, no-bullshit how I see it, it's just a tool, an inanimate object, no more or less worthy of attention than someone carrying a wrench.

Although I do think I'd prolly have the same reaction to someone carrying a minigun or rocket launcher as I would someone carrying a full size lathe or drill press.

*eyebrow lift*
"Ok, that seems a bit excessive, doesn't it ?"
*shrug*

There's times and places where my thought process works SO sideways to most folk there's just no way to translate it, and this is one of em, but hell, I tried.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:37 PM