What's wrong with our country, and how're you gonna fix it? by Cuda

Drakon, you make some excellent points. However, it appears to me you are addressing all posters here, but most of we posters (who are dissatisfied) are U.S. citizens, not foreigners. What I've read here is that a whole lot of us are aware that there are massive problems here at home that need addresssing. The few who have come here to compare their visions of the U.S. and tell us of their governments have not tried to tell us their government is better. But many of us here have noticed major flaws that need addressing.

Also, Saddam was not captured by U.S. troops. He was captured by others (I forget who just now) and turned over to the U.S.

Also, the U.S. is NOT the richest nation on earth. The country is essentially broke. That, specifically, is why this country is taking over oil-rich countries. We cannot afford to buy oil, but with our vast weaponry we can steal it. Afghanistan. Iraq. Etc. The fact that Iraq was about to switch its oil base from Dollars to Euros was fuel to the fire of illicit conquest.

On our Firefly heroes, the fact that they were anti-establishment was, I contend, a major factor in the show's cancellation. The media and government and powerful business interests don't want the truth known. Reference my comments on Kucinich above.
--------------
Finally, one of the more promising steps toward fixing the country would be to have mandatory term limits for all politicians, combined with an end to their "last salary for life, upon retirement" plan, which is the sweet deal they get instead of social security.

..........Ruxton

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

Saturday, March 13, 2004 11:20 PM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:

...Also, Saddam was not captured by U.S. troops. He was captured by others (I forget who just now) and turned over to the U.S.

Also, the U.S. is NOT the richest nation on earth. The country is essentially broke. That, specifically, is why this country is taking over oil-rich countries. We cannot afford to buy oil, but with our vast weaponry we can steal it. Afghanistan. Iraq. Etc. The fact that Iraq was about to switch its oil base from Dollars to Euros was fuel to the fire of illicit conquest.

Finally, one of the more promising steps toward fixing the country would be to have mandatory term limits for all politicians, combined with an end to their "last salary for life, upon retirement" plan, which is the sweet deal they get instead of social security.

..........Ruxton

Points please...

US troops of the 4th infantry division cordoned off an area approximately 2 kilometers square after a tip by a member of Hussein's own clan. They then found Hussein in a spider hole inside a hut. The hole was camouflaged with rugs, dirt, bricks and debris.

The US is far from broke. The fact is we import %47 more than we export. Not the act of a cash poor nation. How that money gets distributed internally and the ebbs and flows of cash within our society is a whole other kettle of fish.

As far as our vast weaponry goes, I've got to disagree with you. Yeah we have some gee whiz weapons in inventory. But in order to get all imperialistic and invade other countries in order to hold them and make them ours we'd need a lot more people in uniform. Right now our Army is so short of troops that they are rotating units back into Iraq that were there during the active fighting phase. Additionally, if we're invading Iraq to take their oil, why the heck would we be allowing them to form their own government? We've already issued a timetable for our troops to be out of there contingent on the Iraqi's action, not ours. If we were there to stay there'd be a 51st star on our flag.

Afghanistan has no oil reserves. They produce and export no oil.

All those gee whiz weapons systems, aircraft, ships, subs, etc. require a really healthy economy to support them. Nobody else in the world has an full sized fleet aircraft carrier. Great Britain has a few jump jet carriers. France has a pint size aircraft carrier, about 1/3 the size of a Nimitz class carrier, and a jump jet carrier. Russia has one carrier but she sits in port all the time because they don't have the money to put her to sea. Right now the US has 11 fleet carriers on active duty with 2 more building. The current crop of carriers runs to the tune of $4.5 billion each.

I am entirely with you on the term limits idea. No more Strom Thurmonds, Jesse Helms or Ted Kennedys please!

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

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

Sunday, March 14, 2004 8:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hi there! I've been away from the board for awhile and noticed this thread. Sorry if dig back in the discussion.

Question tho- whatever happened to Wulfhawk? This is the kind if thing we'd go round and round on.

What's wrong with this country is what's wrong with any mature power- there are no checks and balances. ANY power- religious, military, political, economic- may start out as a small perturbation, but if it learns to change the game so that it becomes even more powerful the situation runs out of control. In electronics terms, you have a positive feedback system. Our founding fathers tried to mitigate that effect by building in checks and balances and consitutionally limiting the role of the Federal government, but they never factored in the power of money.

So we have a population that is conditioned to think of themselves and consumers, and ONLY consumers, conditioned to react to fifteen-second ads, and conditioned to believe that the US is the best of all possible worlds.

The media- which is where most people get their info and which is by and large controlled by commercial interests- have no interest in creating intelligent and thoughtful population. (Hence, FF gets the ax.) Intelligent and thoughful people would not buy Microsoft when they can download Linux for free, or buy "the latest" SUV ($10,000 profit for Ford) when they really only need a commuter car.

In addition to the media's natural interest in creating a stupid, compliant population they have a SPECIFIC interest in showing George "dubya" Bush in the most positive light- Mr. Michael Powell, FCC chair and Colin Powell's son, became the deregulation fairy for big media to be allowed to get even bigger.

In other words, the USA population is hoplelessly brainwashed. The only way to unbrainwash people is to break control of the media. We can start by REQUIRING the media to donate time to all national candidates. AFter all, the airwaves are owned by the people of the US, and licenses are granted with the idea that the broadcasters will benefit the public.

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

Sunday, March 14, 2004 10:13 AM

MAUGWAI

Quote:
Originally posted by Butterfly043:
You keep mentioning you are more 'powerful'. In what way?

McDonald's, the Gap, Brittany Spears, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Coca Cola: just a tiny set of things America has exported. I refuse to eat at McDonald's when I'm overseas, but it's pretty hard not to. Whenever someone in a foreign country finds out I'm American they immediately reference our pop culture. Screw money or military; our power is in good old Justin Timberlake and Pepsi.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

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

Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:08 AM

Well (he wrote on his Linux-powered machine), Signym, I couldn't agree with you more.

Item one: Turn off all TV advertising and don't watch it. Don't even allow the blinking lights to flash, with the sound muted. Those lights prohibit thinking. If anyone doubts the interference of TV advertising on the brain, try doing simple math problems in your head while watching an ad, or even when facing away from the TV and watching its blinking lights on the opposite wall. Anyone who habitually has a TV on "in the background" all day is in fact brainwashed.

Item two: The many attacks on the Internet and its users come from those who don't want to have an "intelligent and thoughtful" populace. Paid government shills (and they are rife) tend to quickly try to debunk any well-considered arguments that go against the (Borg-like) established line of thought put forth by the government/media/corporations.

Item three: Wealth of a nation may be measured in many ways. The World Economic and Social Development Ranking List, based on "...a system that combines dozens of numbers on each country over four years.... These were the measurements used...: Telephones, Infant Mortality, PC Income, PC Exports, Televisions, Daily News Papers, Electricity produced, Old/young population, Life Expectancy, Literacy, International Reserves Less Gold, Birth Rate, Radios, Urban Population, Consumer Prices, Export/Import Ratio.
Per this list, which seems to me to be a reasonable view of the overall wealth of a nation, the U.S. ranks 21st. The first three are Norway, Japan, and Switzerland. The U.S. may well be number one in influence, but all those weapons are not paid for. It's called the National Debt, which is now apparently unpayable.

Item four: When I mentioned Afghanistan, I assumed our intelligent readers would know I referred to control of oil and gas pipelines. Since this was brought up, let's note that Afghanistan had decreased its opium exportation to near zero under the Taliban. Under U.S. influence, opium exportation is now again extremely high. "Afghanistan's significance to the balance of energy and power in Central Asia stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea."

Item five: Concerning the capture of Saddam, the Sunday Herald, 22 Dec 2003, reported Kurds captured, drugged, and secured him in a hole, and then notified U.S. troops. This report gained credibility due to increased information provided at the time, and by the U.S.'s DROPPING Saddam's capture as a means to gain favor for having invaded Iraq. Along that line, there is no doubt Bush lied. There were NO WMD in Iraq, and this was known in advance of the invasion, and this info has recently been made officially public. Also, the invasion of Afghanistan was planned six months before 9-11-01 (Jane's Defence).

.......Ruxton

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

Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:29 AM

LEMAT

This was addressed earlier in the thread, but I want to go back to it. The single member, plurality electoral system cuts down on our choices. A system that required a majority of the vote to win a position would put third parties in a position to be power brokers in election (they would be able to throw thier support behind another canidate if they did not win). This would increase their prominence, and they could end up winning their own races. The laws that could give us a majoritarian system could either be enacted at the state level or the federal level.

I am not a very big fan of Proportional Representation. I do like the single member district, because it means that I have a member of Congress that I can go to if I need to, and because he is selected under the primary system, he is more beholden to the voters of his district than to the Texas or national parties. He has greater independance than he would under a system with more party dicipline.

Also, I really think that American voters need to worry more about fundamental issues like the honesty and integrity of our polititians, and the constitutionality of their actions.

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

Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:48 AM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
Ruxton wrote:

I vaguely recall Perot's family, or daughter, was threatened, and in light of the threat, Perot withdrew. I know he did get massive support from voters disgusted with the status quo.

After Ross made that claim, we pretty much realized he was nuts.

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

Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:27 PM

KUKOO

I agree with what has been said on this board about education and how it can be used in this country as a way for people to pull themselves up in society. I also believe that education can be a way for our country as a whole to improve themselves. Unfortunatly, Education in this country is FAR from equal. This is due to the way that education is funded primarily through local property taxes. Therfore, if you live in a rich community with high property values and a large commercial district, the local schools get tons of money and the students in that community get a high quality of education. If you live in a poor community, with low property values then the school has very little money and the students get a poor education.

I work as an auditor of various School Districts in the suburbs of a major US city and the differences I see from district to district is huge! The people in poorer communities get a much lower quality of education which then handicaps them once they get out of school. For example, I had a friend who moved from one District to another and found out that she was 2 years ahead of everyone in her new school.

In addition, the funding for education (in general) on the State and Federal level is shrinking due to budget crises. Many schools are now facing serious cuts in educational programs. Forget about just cutting music and art, they were gone years ago, the schools are now cutting gifted programs and social studies. Unless education (and not war) begins to take priority and is adequately and equitably funded, a quality education will become a privelidge of the wealthy and not a right of all.

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

Monday, March 15, 2004 3:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I WILL get to discussing Firefly at the end of this post- so it's not entirely off-topic.

LINUX RULES! (she said, on HER Linux-powered machine) heh heh heh

Basically, I don't watch TV. I make exceptions for shows like Firefly, which are d*mn few and far between. Most people think I'm "un-American" when I mention this, they look at me sideways with a suspicion that they can't quite locate but they know that not watching TV is somehow terribly, deeply wrong.

As far as the measures that are taken to hammer down the nail that sticks out, my personal ID was given to the FBI (or whomever) by a webmaster, and I was followed for a couple of days because I kept making accurate predictions of what was going to happen next. And all I did was pay attention to the timing of events and think about the strategic and tactical possibilities... it really doesn't take much!

I've come to the sad realization that although my fellow Americans blather a lot about freedom, most are actually scared spitless of it. For whatever reason (maybe it's the brainwashing) they have a deep need to be told what to do. So, at 3 ayem, when they're not watching TV and nobody is trying to manipulate or monitor their thoughts... it's just them and the dark... their minds are STILL chained. Makes a mockery of "Land of the free, home of the brave", doesn't it?

So when a show like Firefly comes on (see, I TOLD you I was going to tie this is somehow!) full of conflict with the established order and moral ambiguity, some Americans still manage to turn it into a symbol of mindless jingoism.

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

Monday, March 15, 2004 4:37 AM

JEDIJOE7

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
What's wrong with our country?

One thing is that there are too many people who think they know exactly what's wrong with our country, and think that they should be able to tell me exactly what I must do to fix it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Hey, Geez;
[br]
I'm not telling YOU or anyone else what to do. Also, if you got better ideas, I wanna hear 'em. This is a WE project. You can't fix it and I can't fix it. No one man is gonna fix it. It will take all of us to clean this mess up. So, when do we agree on a plan and get down to business?

Jayne, pass me that there chain of command...

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

Monday, March 15, 2004 5:05 AM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I WILL get to discussing Firefly at the end of this post- so it's not entirely off-topic.

LINUX RULES! (she said, on HER Linux-powered machine) heh heh heh

To h*ll with Linux. VMS rules! Hehehe.

Quote:

...As far as the measures that are taken to hammer down the nail that sticks out, my personal ID was given to the FBI (or whomever) by a webmaster, and I was followed for a couple of days because I kept making accurate predictions of what was going to happen next. And all I did was pay attention to the timing of events and think about the strategic and tactical possibilities... it really doesn't take much!

I've come to the sad realization that although my fellow Americans blather a lot about freedom, most are actually scared spitless of it. For whatever reason (maybe it's the brainwashing) they have a deep need to be told what to do. So, at 3 ayem, when they're not watching TV and nobody is trying to manipulate or monitor their thoughts... it's just them and the dark... their minds are STILL chained. Makes a mockery of "Land of the free, home of the brave", doesn't it?

Ah, and now I get to link this thread back to Heinlein. As ol' RAH said, freedom to starve isn't much of a freedom. What those people fear is missing a meal. Maybe they are momentarily concerned with the next new thing or being entertained or driving a new car. But basically most people want to be safe, have a good job today and a better job tomorrow and have a lot of nice toys to play with.

Pardon me while I oversimplify a whole lot. People come in two types, wolves and sheep.

Sheep fear being separated from the herd. If you've ever seen a herd of sheep they cluster tightly together and there's lots of jostling because everyone want to be in the middle. Now being in the middle of the herd is safe and warm, but the view never changes. The herd travels together and the one direction they are guaranteed to go is away from danger.

Wolves travel in groups or alone. There is safety in numbers, but also conflict and while a wolf doesn't fear conflict, that doesn't mean they seek it out. Wolves may not be living cheek by jowl with their friends and relations, but when there is a problem, wolves tend to bunch up, concentrating resources to resolve problems or fight battles.

Now, as long as there's plenty to eat wolves and sheep don't mix much. They may work at the same place, but probably don't hang out together on weekends. But where you find the big difference in the two is in their philosophy on government. Sheep tend to believe that big brother should be there to kiss all their ouchies and make them all better. Wolves tend to believe that just because you are guaranteed opportunity doesn't mean you are guaranteed success. One group wants a bail out for every bad break or accident the other accepts that there is such a thing as bad luck and there is no such thing as a level playing field.

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself which group do you want to be a part of.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

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

Monday, March 15, 2004 5:18 AM

MAUGWAI

One thing I find interesting about this whole discussion is that we all keep talking about "people" and how dumb they are. Just like Jayne thinks he's the hero of the story, we all think most people in this country are blithering idiots. But everybody in this country feels that everybody else in this country is a blithering idiot. We can't all be blithering idiots. We can't all be geniuses either. The truth is, everybody thinks he's the wolf. But most of us are really just sheep dogs.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

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

Monday, March 15, 2004 7:44 AM

Maugwai, I'd argue slightly with your last comment. I'd say those with computers, and the curiosity and brains to use them, would never be considered by any of us to be "dumb." Not only are there wolves and sheep, there are those who are informed and those who don't have a clue. The infomed among us have, and use, the Internet -- the biggest library in the world -- to get our information. The rest most likely watch TV news. I suspect we're talking about the TV-watchers when we refer to dummies.

That government is best which governs least.

.......Ruxton

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

Monday, March 15, 2004 10:32 AM

STEVE580

Quote:
Originally posted by maugwai:
By learning to analyze poetry, you learned to analiyze political speeches

Don't you think, though, a more effective way to learn to analyze political speeches would be by...analyzing political speeches? I don't know how you teach, but when we looked at poems, we looked at the rhyming schemes used. Is it thirteen lines, using a-a-b-b rhyming? Or eleven lines, using a-b-a-b rhyming?
Not terribly useful stuff, that.

Now if English focused on real-world material, like writing magazine articles, or novels, that perhaps would be useful. But writing poems; not so much.

I'm not a poet, or a nuclear engineer, or a mathematician. Learning about those subjects hasn't helped me, at all. Learning about credit ratings, or the structure of our government; those are things I wasn't taught on the state's dollar.

I can show you 4 > 5x on a graph, though. And that, boy, that I use all the damn time. I don't know what I'd do if we hadn't spent three monthes on the subject in eleventh grade.
-Steve

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

Monday, March 15, 2004 10:48 AM

MAUGWAI

Quote:
Don't you think, though, a more effective way to learn to analyze political speeches would be by...analyzing political speeches? I don't know how you teach, but when we looked at poems, we looked at the rhyming schemes used. Is it thirteen lines, using a-a-b-b rhyming? Or eleven lines, using a-b-a-b rhyming?
Not terribly useful stuff, that.

Well, in that case, your teacher was an idiot. Sure, we look at rhyme scheme, but I spend far more time looking at why the poets and authors make the choices they do. In fact, I showed the BTVS ep "The Body" in my class, first without commentary, then with, to show them that most choices authors make are with purpose, even if they don't know what that purpose is. Joss Whedon has a great awareness of purpose, so he's perfect for that kind of thing.

That's the kind of literary interpretation you can apply to political speeches, which we also analyze. Because if you've really learned a concept, you can take it from one subject, like poetry, and apply it to another, like politics. Then again, maybe I'm full of crap.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

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

Monday, March 15, 2004 3:41 PM

RONALDRAYGUN

Actually, the judicial branch in American government is the most powerful of the three branches. The executive and legislative branches are ripe with "checks and balances" and are accountable to the people. The judicial branch (meaning federal judges) are appointed by politicians and are not accountable to the people. Therefore, unless a federal judge breaks the law, he holds his position until he retires. The main 'balance' in the higher courts is that there is a panel of judges that make decisions on issues deemed unconstitutional. Any law passed by the legislation or decision made by the executive branch can be brought to court to question it's legality. Decisions made by the courts can be appealed to a higher court but only if the higher court agrees to hear the case. At this time the president is unable to appoint any federal judges because the Democrats fear that certain laws will be overturned if conservative judges are appointed. Congress and the senate must approve judicial appointees (checks)and so far the democrats have successfully blocked all nominees. This is just a brief and very simplistic overview but I wanted to convey that the President is not like a Monarch. Power in the White House is not absolute. There are certain circumstances where the President can order things. Such as sending troops to foreign soil. There is a strict timelimit (I believe 90 days) that the troops can remain. If it's longer, Congress needs to approve. We currently have Marines in Haiti under this executive decision to prevent all out civil war. If calm is not restored in 90 days the troops will have to leave or have congressional approval to stay. The US takes a lot of heat from the rest of the world, sometimes it is deserved but most of the time it is not. I hope this thread can be a great and civil way to exchange idea's! Take care fellow Browncoat!!

If Politics is a sport and politicians are the players then the Republicans are my team!

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 2:45 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Hey, Geez;
I'm not telling YOU or anyone else what to do. Also, if you got better ideas, I wanna hear 'em. This is a WE project. You can't fix it and I can't fix it. No one man is gonna fix it. It will take all of us to clean this mess up. So, when do we agree on a plan and get down to business?

Jayne, pass me that there chain of command...

Wasn't singling you out, my post just happened to fall right below yours. However, I must note that you are telling me what to do, just like anyone who says "WE must do this", or "ALL OF US are needed to clean this mess up".

To tell the truth, I don't see that much wrong with the country that needs a special major effort to fix. We're just cycling through political swings as we have for the past 200 years. Generally they end up leaving a better country. Remember that when we started, only rich white guys could vote or hold office, and a good portion of the population was someone else's property. Every cycle has ended up giving more rights to more people, and has made the process more inclusive.

A country and its government are like a closed ecosystem. Even if it's stable it'll have variations in its health. But trying to change it too radically usually has a bad effect.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 6:42 AM

ARAWAEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

We're just cycling through political swings as we have for the past 200 years. Generally they end up leaving a better country.

I definitely agree with you here. The country does have a sort of perpetual oscillation in its political pendulum. However, I think it is the dissent that causes these changes. A unanimous consensus is always going to be impossible when it comes to groups of people, the best one can hope for is a hovering around a general area (like the Constitution). As one side goes too far, the other gains strength and pulls back towards the center; that is as one side gets more extreme more people disagree with it and the voice of dissent grows. Granted people and the idea of governance lack the 2-dimensionality of the pendulum, it is far more complex and dynamic with multiple voices pulling in multiple directions.

If absolutely everybody chose to wait for the pendulum to swing back there would be no oscillation at all, as people and their ideas are the force that makes this pendulum swing. Unanimous inaction is as likely as unanimous consensus.

Quote:
A country and its government are like a closed ecosystem. Even if it's stable it'll have variations in its health. But trying to change it too radically usually has a bad effect

Again I have to agree with you that too much change or change too quickly is a bad thing. Any human institution needs to have stability and to be dynamic. A balance must be struck, between the dissenting voices on the subject.

Quote:
Every cycle has ended up giving more rights to more people, and has made the process more inclusive.

This is only true depending upon where you draw your lines I suppose. I don't see cycles ending, but a continuous process with corresponding increases and decreases in personal freedoms as the political pendulum oscillates.

While inclusivity has increased, so has marginalization. From what I have read in this thread I am not the only person who would agree with this G.K. Chesterton quote,

"For the powerful class will choose two courses of action, both of them safe for itself, and then give the democracy the gratification of taking one course or the other. The Lord will take two things so much alike that he would not mind choosing from them blindfold and then for great jest he will allow the slaves to choose."

Not all here believe this to be the case, but the discussion of such differences of opinion is what this thread is for.

Arawaen

P.S. For what it is worth, my salute to everybody for keeping this thread so civil. People are disagreeing and offering their opinions without the need to resort to hostile words, insults and mindless rhetoric.

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:48 AM

There was a lot to read so I hope that I'm not repeating anything.

First off I'm Canadian and lived in the states (Berkeley) for a chunk of time and realized a couple fundamental things that could be changed. With reading below I admit that I may be wrong and please don't take these things personally. So, here I go:

1)
At least the US and Canada at the high school level have what I call "The Jock Syndrome". This being that the jocks tend to be the "King of the Hill" on the social ladder. Makes enough sense at this level, as teen-agers have a tendency to most respect physical prowess with the raging hormones and all.

Now, in Canada it stops at this level and intellect is most respected after that. But, in the states it doesn't stop. One need only look as far as college football to see proof of this. And no I'm not saying that intellect isn't respected at all, I'm talking in relatives here.

During someones University/College years is where people form there opinions about life that will in all likeliness stick for the rest of there life. This being in general that use of aggressive behaviour is preferred over the non-aggressive. Which we can see in the policies of the US government in general as well as how people think in the US in general.

2)
Getting back to high school. I see in the states (and in Canada we are catching up) there is a trend to raise kids self confidence. This is a good thing if done right. Unfortunately it isn't. The teachers are giving the kids so much "your the best" comments that they have an over inflated sense of self so a "I already know how to do that" attitude surfaces.

This inevitably leads to the "Me Attitude". I noticed that in the states when I walked down the streets that people didn't move out of each others way. They basically just played a game of chicken to see who would move out of the others way. Another example would be when someone is waiting at light to go and the light went green they would just go. It didn't really matter if there was a pedestrian there as then you would here screeching tires and some colourful language.

I think that they actually believe that by doing this would cause a reduction in teen pregnancy. This is false. Teen pregnancy has be linked directly to good self esteem not self confidence. These two are mutually exclusive but the former will lead to the latter and not the other way around. Which is where I think the fallacy is in this logic.

3)
A complete lack of respect for education in general. I'm not saying that this persists through out the country but a good portion of it.

In California the cities sell there schools to other cities to run because they can't afford it.

California cut all student loans programs and state funding to all Universities. This was one of the *first* things they did when they started budget cuts. As a result UC Berkeley has had to turn away thousands of students because they just can't afford it. And I know of at least one case of someone losing a permanent position because the University (a different one) couldn't afford to hire him anymore.

Somewhere else in the states (I have no inclination to look this up again) one of the cities sold a portion of the schools to a private company to run. This company was to run the schools at profit. I think we can all agree that that just won't work.

4)
At the risk of being unpopular (if I'm not already) Gun Control. Yes, I mentioned this dreaded taboo topic. I do this because I have seen studies that show that gun control is favored by the majority of the US citizens. So, then why isn't responsible gun control in place.

5)
People don't vote. Everyone in the NRA votes (see 4) but the majority of people don't. There is a my vote won't count for anything attitude.

There are other points but I think that 1, 2 & 3 are the most fundamental as the others tend to be a result of these.

I will offer some logic here (flawed or not it is up to you to decide).

Of course 5 is the easiest to change which if changed will lead to 4 being passed. Once 4 is passed aggressive behaviour will fall (wishful thinking I think - probably take some time) which will lead to a fix in 3 which with the domino effect lead to 1.

2 is the hard one as it can exist with the all the others being fixed. If one wanted to start at a very fundamental level one could fix 2 which could domino the others into being fixed.

----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 10:29 AM

SigmaNunki,

Excellent points in most respects except for gun control. Unfortunately you've not got the truth here. In all, and I mean ALL locations where concealed-carry laws have passed, crime has gone DOWN.

THE OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS BY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS REDUCES CRIME.

Nuf sed.

.......Ruxton

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:08 PM

Ruxton, no need to shout, white on black is just as readable as lower case as it is in uppercase.

The reason that I stated that gun control should go through is that the US did a study some years back of why Canada has such little violent crime (ie firearm related) and when the results came back it was largely because of our gun control laws. Now, that being said, I am *not* saying that social factors are not in play here.

But to counter, studies show that when there is a firearm in the home, there is an increase in accidental injury/death (ie someone hears a noise and shoots).

So, now it is an opinion war. Does the loss of life in my point overcome reduction in crime in yours or visa versa? This is a debate that I don't wish to participate in as we clearly disagree here and I know that you're not going to change my mind on gun control laws and I think that I won't change yours.

One question though. Why would someone want to carry a concealed firearm?

----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:53 PM

HJERMSTED

The U.S. needs binding national referendums on the big issues (should the U.S. join NAFTA?, etc). The rest of the civilized world (Australia, New Zealand, all of the European Union nations, Canada) hold binding national referendums on the big stuff. It's time to ask why we don't.

Constitution in the way? Well... frickin' change it!

I know it's hard to accept but DOZENS of other nations are MORE democratic than the citizens of the U.S. This means the citizens of those nations have more power than U.S. citizens do.

Once we have binding national referendums, it will be MUCH easier to do away with relics such as the electoral college. Hell... we citizens could even vote on new ways to elect congressional bodies (google: proportional representation) and executive positions (google: majority preferential voting).

The new better ideas are out there. The States just ain't using them.

The present U.S. system is so old and decrepit (hell... most of our constitution predates ELECTRICITY) that it was possible for a moron like G.W. Bush to steal an election.

Citizens in other countries looked at Florida 2000 and asked the obvious questions "RE-count?! Why don't you RE-vote?"

That's what would have happened in a truly democratic U.S.

mattro

PS: I know, I know... the U.S. is a Republic, not a democracy. STEP OFF!

It will become a democracy as soon as we make it one!

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 2:16 PM

SigmaNunki,
Sorry, it is NOT an opinion war. I make my living knowing things about firearms, and must tell you that you are much misinformed. I have no time to lead you to links that prove my point, but there are many. (look up Gary Kleck and John Lott, for two.) I capitalized my comment not because I wanted to shout, but to make it absolutely clear that you are mistaken. Because you doubt that:

"One question though. Why would someone want to carry a concealed firearm?"

...ask a woman who has just been raped (or one who just prevented a rape because of the presence of a handgun) what she thinks of carry laws. I think it was Gary Kleck (without looking things up) who has done many long-term studies of crime and its prevention, and proved that the presence of firearms prevents crime by the millions of instances yearly. Not many of those events make the news because they're not dramatic.

I have to emphasize that most of what you've heard about so-called studies of "gun control" have been put out by anti-gun proponents. The truth, which they never tell you, is not popular with the media. The opposite camp doesn't grab headlines all that often.

I understand Canadian laws about handguns, but we in the U.S. are permitted to go lawfully armed. If that were not so, I would ask you, when you see I am armed, why in heck are you NOT armed?

Only free men bear arms.

.......Ruxton

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:10 PM

Ruxton, then I say to you that you are in the other camp and then why should I buy any of either sides propaganda?

Let's put the rape issue aside as it is a rather dramatic one.

The question now becomes, do we prevent crime by fear that the potential victim may have a firearm or by more passive means (ie preventative eduction, promoting a more non-aggressive society, etc.)?

If by fear then the perp will only wait for the poor woman who can't afford a gun (they are *expensive*). Now protection has become somewhat of a "only if you can afford it" thing hasn't it?

But, if we take the promoting a more non-aggressive society road then the benefits will be to all and for a longer time. It may take awhile to get there but IMHO this is the better option. This way, there is also the prevention of an arms race in the general population.

You said "Only free men bear arms."

Well I tell you that I am free and I don't bear arms.

You said "Sorry, it is NOT an opinion war."

It just turned into one.

Remember, truth is relative and any statistics can be cooked.

----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:56 PM

RONALDRAYGUN

An armed society is a polite society.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
SigmaNunki,

Excellent points in most respects except for gun control. Unfortunately you've not got the truth here. In all, and I mean ALL locations where concealed-carry laws have passed, crime has gone DOWN.

THE OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS BY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS REDUCES CRIME.

Nuf sed.

.......Ruxton

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 4:59 PM

A politeness that is forced by fear is no politeness at all.

Quote:
Originally posted by RonaldRaygun:
An armed society is a polite society.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
SigmaNunki,

Excellent points in most respects except for gun control. Unfortunately you've not got the truth here. In all, and I mean ALL locations where concealed-carry laws have passed, crime has gone DOWN.

THE OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS BY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS REDUCES CRIME.

Nuf sed.

.......Ruxton

----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 6:13 PM

STEVE580

Carrying a gun in a purse is an example of a concealed weapon, if I'm not mistaken, and seems reasonable to me; and..

Quote:
A politeness that is forced by fear is no politeness at all.

..huh?

As for your second point - guns in houses raises gun accident rate - if you take proper saftey precautions, it is impossible for young children to gain access to these firearms. And if you want to ban everything that kids can hurt themselves with, houses would be pretty barren.
-Steve

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Carrying a gun in a purse is an example of a concealed weapon, if I'm not mistaken, and seems reasonable to me; and..

This is what I mean by opinion war.

Now tell me, how is the woman going to stop a mugger with that gun in her purse if it is taken from her? And even if she puts up a struggle how is she to open the purse and get that gun with someone wrenching it around? Or how is a woman going to stop a rapist if he comes up behind her and wrestles her to the ground, etc. Carrying a gun may be "reasonable" in theory but in practice it is a *very* different beast.

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Quote:
A politeness that is forced by fear is no politeness at all.

..huh?

Re-reading the previous posts will lead you to my meaning of, people will be polite because they fear being shot. Fear is no way to manage a society. Well... any civilized society at least.

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
As for your second point - guns in houses raises gun accident rate - if you take proper saftey precautions, it is impossible for young children to gain access to these firearms.

1) It's *never* impossible!

2) At no point did I include children in my argument. Where are you coming from? Re-read my post. It is rather clear that I meant intentionally shooting, unintentional victim.

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
And if you want to ban everything that kids can hurt themselves with, houses would be pretty barren.
-Steve

Now this is just getting silly. You can't liken removing book shelves because children can climb and fall or having powerful solvents to firearms. They are apples and oranges and should be treated as such.

----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 1:35 AM

SHSSAY

I haven't worried about the issue of gun control for several reasons.

A.) Its an issue that will not be solved any time soon because it is written in the Constitution that citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms. The members of the NRA will fight that point to the death, even if it is a point that is largely outdated. In addition, making a law that prohibits citizens from carrying guns means ammending the Constitution. That is difficult to do. Many people are uneasy about doing that.

B.) The main reason I don't give this issue much of my consideration is the fact that even if guns are made illegal in our country, it won't have much impact on the crime rate. I just don't believe that. Making something illegal has yet to stop people from obtaining and using the illegal substance in question. Prohibition is a perfect example. People still managed to get alcohol even after it was illegal. A more recent example is marijuana, cocaine, meth, etc. Making something illegal makes it more difficult for a criminal to obtain, but criminals have a great deal of ingenuity, and they'll get it anyway.

C.) Lastly, if you did manage to prohibit the general public from obtaining and using firearms in their entirety, there still wouldn't be a significant decrease in crime. There are other weapons to be had. People have been reduced to using knives, baseball bats, ice picks, screwdrivers, their bare hands in the absence of a firearm. Eliminating one weapon from a person's arsenal is not going to stop him/her from inflicting harm or violence on another person if they are inclined to do so. They'll simply find another way to inflict that violence.

If I believed that making guns illegal would lower the prevalence of crime in our country, I would throw my whole support behind the cause to ban them and argue the point with ferocity. But I don't believe it. That doesn't mean that I am on the other side either. It simply means I don't think this is an issue that is as significant as many others believe it to be.

"Two by two, hands of blue." -River Tam

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 2:05 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

The question now becomes, do we prevent crime by fear that the potential victim may have a firearm or by more passive means (ie preventative eduction, promoting a more non-aggressive society, etc.)?

----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!

Why does this end up being an either/or question? Why not both? And a few other things besides? You may promote a less aggressive society, but unless you're willing to brainwash everyone, there are some who just won't accept your message. These may be the one's who are deterred by the threat of active self-defence or perhaps mandatory sentencing. Others may resort to violence as a response to the hopelessness of poverty, and would respond to better lives and more hope.

If it were me, I'd be looking for workable methods that allow the most individual choice and liberty to the folks who don't break the laws, rather than punishing them by loss of rights for something thay haven't done.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 4:03 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Shssay wrote:

Quote:
B.) The main reason I don't give this issue much of my consideration is the fact that even if guns are made illegal in our country, it won't have much impact on the crime rate. I just don't believe that. Making something illegal has yet to stop people from obtaining and using the illegal substance in question. Prohibition is a perfect example. People still managed to get alcohol even after it was illegal. A more recent example is marijuana, cocaine, meth, etc. Making something illegal makes it more difficult for a criminal to obtain, but criminals have a great deal of ingenuity, and they'll get it anyway.

C.) Lastly, if you did manage to prohibit the general public from obtaining and using firearms in their entirety, there still wouldn't be a significant decrease in crime. There are other weapons to be had. People have been reduced to using knives, baseball bats, ice picks, screwdrivers, their bare hands in the absence of a firearm. Eliminating one weapon from a person's arsenal is not going to stop him/her from inflicting harm or violence on another person if they are inclined to do so. They'll simply find another way to inflict that violence.

If I believed that making guns illegal would lower the prevalence of crime in our country, I would throw my whole support behind the cause to ban them and argue the point with ferocity. But I don't believe it. That doesn't mean that I am on the other side either. It simply means I don't think this is an issue that is as significant as many others believe it to be.

Excellent points.

Gun control will not make it much more difficult for criminals to get guns. Most criminals get their guns through illegal means now, and banning guns will only do tow things:

- make gun runners and illegal gun rings richer.

- take a means of self defense away from law abiding citizens.

I own several guns, and have a concealed permit for two of them. I have never had to use a weapon on a civilian & hope I never have to do so. I do feel better knowing I can defend my home, family, and self if the need arises. I am former military, and have taken several gun safety courses. I have educated my children on the truths about firearms, and take every necessary precaution to keep my weapons away from my children.

Gun control sounds great in theory, but in truth it will not solve anything.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 6:55 AM

This gun control issue is the closest thing yet to making this thread too polarized to continue. I, for one, just wanted to add one thing.

I know that Michael Moore is loved by some and absolutely friggin hated by others, but his documentary BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE addresses these issues in a strangely even way.

Moore belongs to the NRA and has for a long time, and he takes great effort to compare the US and Canada when it comes to gun use, ownership, and violence without playing to either side.

What he ends up saying is that the laws of both countries have little impact, and that the cultural differences are really why we US citizens have generally more violence than our Northern neighbors.

If, and I do mean IF, you can stomach renting it, I highly recommend it.

Now if anyone wants to discuss the Automotive industry and its role in politics, that is my career field, and I'd love to change the topic.

Again, this has been a fascinating discussion so far, and I hope it can continue.

The only way to know your country is to live outside it for a while.

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 8:18 AM

ARAWAEN

The only gun control I could conceive of supporting is banning the manufacture as opposed to the ownership. Not to say I wouldn't support efforts to decrease violence and the tendency to react violently from the populace. I also don't mind a background check to make sure the purchaser isn't a known criminal or terrorist.

I am not a big supporter of concealed weapons, I would prefer that everybody carried them openly.

I would also like to see basic firearm safety in the curriculum. Things like: Always treat a weapon as loaded until you have checked yourself! Never point a gun at a person or animal unless shooting them is one of the options you are willing to accept!

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 8:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
You may promote a less aggressive society, but unless you're willing to brainwash everyone, there are some who just won't accept your message.

Why do you think that I want to brainwash everyone? Promoting doesn't mean brainwashing. It just means that I would like to see the US evolve into a less violent culture and someone promoting that is pretty much the only way it'll happen.

I didn't want to get into this debate and somehow let myself get drawn into it. I won't change my mind and you guys won't change yours. I will leave this debate and will probably never understand why guns are so important to you guys.

On another note though, I did enjoy this lively debate as the other online community I'm involved with couldn't have had such an intelligent discussion. They would just let it degrade into a "your momma" type argument. I think I will like it here

Till next time.

----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 9:32 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Why do you think that I want to brainwash everyone? Promoting doesn't mean brainwashing. It just means that I would like to see the US evolve into a less violent culture and someone promoting that is pretty much the only way it'll happen.

----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!

I don't think you'd want to brainwash everyone, or even anyone. Just noting that the only way to successfully apply a single solution is to force everyone to follow it.

The "EITHER we promote non-aggression, OR we all go armed" scenario seems to follow the current perception that we have to find one perfect solution to every problem. As long as we are dealing with individuals, that's never going to work. Different folks need different motivations to reach the desired result.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 10:03 AM

The second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with hunting. It is there because the founding fathers wanted to ensure that the populace would ultimately have a means of defending itself against an over-agressive, lying, thieving government. This fact goes right to the heart of this thread.

Again, there are two kinds of people in the world, those who are informed and those who are not. If you are informed, i.e., not "thinking" with your emotions (as in, "I don't like guns; therefore no one should have a gun), the issue of firearms is incredibly simple.

The various posters who have gone on record here against guns, no matter what country you hail from, have NOT had the courtesy to do what I requested. Therefore they are IGNORANT, not opinionated. Put "John Lott" and "Gary Kleck" into Google, as I requested, and START READING. Only after you have done so will you have begun to become educated, and only then will your opinion be worth mentioning.

John Lott wrote "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws" He found that "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes." This ain't OPINION, it's FACT borne out by massive and length studies. Repeat: This is NOT opinion. Lott's analysis was based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994. Rather than clutter up this thread with quotes, go to the interview with Lott and READ.

About Gary Kleck: There are approximately two million defensive gun uses per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Look it up!

"Bowling for Columbine" was rife with massive distortions, misquotes, and pure b/s. It is not a clear picture of anything except an anti-gunner's agenda.

Someone said, "...even if guns are made illegal in our country, it won't have much impact on the crime rate." On the contrary. Crime will skyrocket, as it did in England where private ownership of firearms was recently banned.

Another poster attempted to trivialize rape. Shame on you. The chances for anyone in the U.S. being involved in a violent crime during his/her lifetime is at least one in three. Do your homework before emoting here. I've tried to be civil, but such bullheaded massive refusal to look things up simply creates a waste of time for us all.

Thank you all for your time. I must leave this thread for awhile because of pressing business.

........Ruxton

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 10:23 AM

Ruxton,

I tried politely to change the subject from this very polarizing subject matter.

I am not IGNORANT, I am not uninformed, I am also smart enough to know that broad brush simplifications are never the truth. Only those with nothing to say trivialize another's opinion with comments like it is b/s rife with misinformation.

You maybe the only poster here who has moved beyond the civility we have maintained so far.

So thanks for your rant, I am done.

God gave us one mouth and two ears to be used in that proportion.

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 10:58 AM

SciFido, why do you refuse to look up Kleck and Lott?

Also, why do you think I singled your generally insightful comments out as being misinformed? Other than Columbine, I can't argue with most of what you've said on this thread.

Rather than broad-brush generalizations, my comments were directed to readers seeking the truth, and I directed them where to look, concerning this most important topic. If a reader can't be bothered to check my references out (any expertise I have on anything in this world is most emphatically focused on firearms), he can hardly have a clear-cut opinion of anything, don't you agree?

Because you claimed my thoroughly researched and referenced thoughts to be a "rant," and also indicated I had "nothing to say," I ask the rest of the readers who has cast the first stone.

........Ruxton

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:44 AM

I'm only replying because what I mention not only applies to the current topic.

Geezer, of course I don't think that there is just one perfect solution to any problem. More of one good start that will lead to a comprehensive solution. I'll try to be more clear in the future as sometimes the inside voice doesn't make it to the hands typing, sorry.

Ruxton, you seem to be of the opinion that if someone doesn't hold the opinion that you hold (ie what you consider truth) then they are miss-informed or ignorant. I've said it before:

"Remember, truth is relative and any statistics can be cooked."

Also, one cannot take something that happened in England and assume that the same thing would happen in the states if the US did the same thing. The English and US cultures are too different to do that. For god sakes, I had culture shock when I moved to the US and the culture of Canada and the US is much closer than England and the US.

Who trivialized rape?

And to quote Ruxton "I've tried to be civil..."

This implies that in that particular post you are not being civil. This combined with the aggressive tone of that post = rant. Therefore I must agree with SciFiDo on that point.

Quick frankly I am baffled that you don't see that this is a matter of opinion. Even if everything you said is fact there still is the fact of increased accidents. So, in someones opinion which matters more? Which is more significant? Not to even mention any other factors.

I am also amazed that with all my points this is the one that hit the nerve. I think it would be a very interesting sociological study to figure out exactly why.

----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:48 PM

Ruxton,

First let me pull back the stone, or back the truck up. I apologize to everyone on the thread and you in particular if I went too far.

I just had trouble with the way you approached the previous commentary. You undoubtedly have facts to back up your positions, and since you work in the firearm industry your credentials as an expert on one side of this discussion are untouchable.

Facts though, are just one small piece of this very emotional debate. Like any strongly polarizing topic most folks do not consider info that opposes their opinion. They use info to help them further their individual belief system. That’s just human nature.

I have no facts on this issue, and I am not in any way an expert, but I have an opinion born of my particular unusual circumstances. I have tried to see both sides of this and every hot topic, but sometimes I just can’t.

I just do not want anyone telling me that I am less than they are, for any reason. Debate and discussion are healthy so long as we don’t get personal. I assume there are no stupid people on this thread. We all like Firefly afterall.

I bet the founding fathers sat around in much the same way and pounded out the bill of rights trying to accommodate varying and entrenched positions.

So, how about we agree to disagree on this one and move on.

Suggested Topics:

Freedom and Security
Litigation out of control
Pharmaceutical advertisements on TV
Big Business overpowering democracy (one of my fave focus points)
Etc, Etc.

I leave this in everyone else’s court…

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 1:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SciFido:
So, how about we agree to disagree on this one and move on.

Here here!

How about retinal scans for passports. Now this is more up my ally, being a IT guy and all.

I know that the US has tried (still trying?) to get retinal scans on passports. They tried to get Canada to go along with it but we flatly refused. Why? They just don't work. They are horribly inaccurate. The numbers vary from article to article but they tend to be aprox. 66% accurate over a few hundred person sample. IMHO that just isn't good enough.

What do you guys think?

----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 1:10 PM

Quote:
How about retinal scans for passports. Now this is more up my ally, being a IT guy and all.

I for one have a retinal condition that would guarantee that my scans would not work. My retina changes every time I visit my specialist. I even have the pics to prove it.

I think that DNA scanners, like in Gattaca, will be the final choice. Nothing else that I am aware of has proven effective. Not that such a thing exists today.

I just don't think I will be convinced that an embedded chip or other ID system forced upon me is safe. Plus faces and fingerprints can be forged, can't they?

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 1:49 PM

SigmaNunke, you said:
"Ruxton, you seem to be of the opinion that if someone doesn't hold the opinion that you hold (ie what you consider truth) then they are miss-informed [sic] or ignorant. I've said it before:
"Remember, truth is relative and any statistics can be cooked."
--------------------
Well, call it an opinion if you persist. However, I've studied firearms intensely for over fifty years. So, it's sort of like telling you my opinion is, the sky is blue. My opinion is that oranges are generally orange. My point is that those who argue against firearms, and not only on this thread, are ignorant of many facts that I knew and forgot forty years ago.

If I tell you my opinion is that George Bush lied to start the Iraq war, and can back that up with solid references, but the next guy believes TV news and doesn't look anything up, and loves the current occupant of the White House, can his thoughts be considered an opinion? I think not. Is there any "relativity" to that truth? No, there's not.

As with all the discussions of government on this thread, either you have the facts or you do not. There are no "opinions" that firearms in law-abiding hands prevent crime (whether or not they're used), only facts that they do. I urge folks to read the references I quoted. One more reference, look up Kennesaw, GA, and go the the police report on that town's crime.

Neither can those who don't like guns and have no familiarity with them -- or know the first thing about them -- can be said to have anything like an informed opinion on them. They are, shall we say, IGNORANT. I am ignorant of the taste of turtle soup. I have no opinion on it. I don't like strawberries. My opinion on them is they are not for me. If you like them, fine, but don't tell me my taste buds are wrong.

What happened in England also happened in Australia. What happened there also happened in the U.S. where guns were outlawed. Crime went UP. This is uniform, not regionalized.

This information is once again not opinion nor is it localized. Either you know, or you don't. Before you make any further comments about firearms, please have the courtesy to look into the matter. Before you comment that Bush didn't lie, look into the matter. Before you comment that the U.S. government doesn't lie to the people, look into the matter. Ignorance is one of the biggest problems we are faced with, and why this country has such corrupt government. People don't want to know the truth. It's out there, and it sure as hell is not relative, nor is it "cooked" if you just look hard for answers.

Also, there is no FACT of increased accidents with guns in the home. Your child is 14 times more likely to be hurt in a car accident than by accidental firearm usage. His danger of drowning, etc., are also far higher. And finally, the responsible gun owner takes time to secure his home and his children. To clarify this, anyone who owns a gun without having had training in its use and who has an accident, ought to be hanged for murder. There are very few gun accidents among those who know and obey four very simple rules. If you don't know them, don't own a gun.

I suspect you think nerves were struck because this so-called difference of opinion comes closest to the whole point of this thread. What can we do to make our country better? Read things. Study problems as though you really care about them. Look stuff up. If you don't, yet still claim to have an "opinion," you're deceiving yourself. Isn't that what we've been trying to get to the root of here? I expressed my thoughts because in this case I'm probably better informed on this subject than any of our participants, (thirty years ago I got letters from all over the world on my comments about firearms in a muli-million-readership journal, and I've been at it ever since) and felt it was my duty to point out the real facts, as separated from emotion.

Once more, I've tried to be civil. But why have you persisted in slinging mud while clinging to your ill-informed opinions? Why have you not looked up the clear references I gave you? What are you afraid of? Yes, our government is corrupt. Yes, it needs massive overhauling. And yes, guns are part of the problem, or more correctly, the solution. Without them, we have no alternatives but to take the b/s doled out by our masters, the government. Without them we can't fly to the outer regions of space and deal with Reavers, can we?

........Ruxton

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 2:00 PM

Seems to me dealing with retinal scans and the like is to overlook the wide-open border with Mexico. I've walked some of those deserts, though many years ago now, and saw the free influx of people coming north. There was no stopping them.

I think the Spaniards had the right idea, when they voted out Asnar. The people had enough of government lies, and did something about it. BTW, Kerry seems to be a close clone of Bush. I haven't followed, but does Kucinich still have a chance? Or is there anyone worthy of being president still in the running? Help!

.........Ruxton

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 2:45 PM