Race Relations
Poll Results
For most African-Americans, the election of Barack Obama as president was a dream come true that they didn't think they would see in their lifetime, a national poll released Tuesday suggests.
Eighty percent of African-Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey said that Obama's election was a dream come true, and 71 percent said they never thought a black candidate for president would get elected in their lifetime.
The poll reflects anecdotal evidence that surfaced across the country last week as soon as Obama's projected win was announced.
The poll also suggests a racial divide among people who thought a black candidate would be elected president in their lifetimes. Fifty-nine percent of white respondents said they thought a black president would be elected in their lifetime, but only 29 percent of black respondents agreed.
"A majority of blacks now believe that a solution to the country's racial problems will eventually be found," Holland said. "In every previous poll on this topic dating back to 1993, black respondents had always said that racial problems were a permanent part of the American landscape."
I found this very interesting. I know that racial bias exists, I think it always will, but I wonder how much of it is perceived and how much of it still exists.
The disparity of the views from whites to blacks was troublesome, but one area where the two agreed was on the question "do you think a solution will be worked out - over half of both groups thought a solution would be found. (57% white & 55% blacks)
I remain hopeful.
A solution? A solution to individual perceptions and attitudes?
It's called cultural training. The same technique works for gender and sexual orientation biases. But you knew that already.
It's called cultural training. The same technique works for gender and sexual orientation biases. But you knew that already.
And, of course, for the Red Guard, the Brown Shirts, the Cultural Revolution (China and Iran), the Young Pioneers ... yes, cultural training for ideological purposes has a wonderful history.
Show me where the "organization" is in this cultural training. We're 305,637,930
people living in one country, bumping elbows every day -- surely one becomes tolerant, or one becomes isolationist, paranoid, and extinct.
A solution? A solution to individual perceptions and attitudes?
The trick to evolution is not that the individual changes; it's that the individual eventually dies.
A "solution", did you say? Ja, ve haff der Final Solution for you!
Is that 'final' like the final round of the Reader's Digest prize draw is 'final'?
It's called cultural training. The same technique works for gender and sexual orientation biases. But you knew that already.
I know, I've had it up to here (points at eyebrow) with "Diversity Training".
Oh, your country/region/culture has this custom and that tradition, well isn't that special.
But... oh yes, there is a but... and the but is, I don't give a hairy rat's ass about your customs or traditions.
I don't care what/who makes you horny.
I don't want to be your pal.
I only want to know when you're going to do your
fucking job! :mad2:
I only want to know when you're going to do your fucking job! :mad2:
"By the content of their character..." (or their ability to do their job!)
We are in agreement.
Sensible, Bruce. Sensible.
I know, I've had it up to here (points at eyebrow) with "Diversity Training".
Holy shitballs man, you should come hang out in academia for a while. Higher Education has a religion, and its liturgy is "diversity".
I know, I've had it up to here (points at eyebrow) with "Diversity Training".
Oh, your country/region/culture has this custom and that tradition, well isn't that special.
But... oh yes, there is a but... and the but is, I don't give a hairy rat's ass about your customs or traditions.
I don't care what/who makes you horny.
I don't want to be your pal.
I only want to know when you're going to do your fucking job! :mad2:
God I couldn't agree more. It is mandatory in the military every year for every person. Hello, take a look around you, in many units the white people were the minority. I never understood why they didn't just change it to white peoples training. I am all for diversity, by merit.
I never understood why they didn't just change it to white peoples training.
Now Merc, you know that would be a racial term, don't you?
yea, but I never saw much training geared toward evidence of reverse racism either. You couldn't talk about it.
Reverse racism :headshake
"Diversity training" at the last three companies I've worked for has not focused on race. The thrust is towards understanding disabilities, educational backgrounds, and "life issues".
"Life issues" = "Work-life balance" = "I have to leave early to take care of my kids/mother/dog"
That's about it. Talking about race is passe.
Most of the diversity training I've been on has been about disabilities and gender awareness (more in terms of LBGT than anything). There's been some stuff about race, and religion, but these are very sticky areas in the UK, so I think it can be appropriate. Even that has been quite interesting and useful and has included myth busting' as part of its focus; which can be really useful in cases where the employer/management aren't aware of certain issues and are being taken advantage of: people claiming something is their religion when it really isn't, often connected with disputes over uniforms and holidays.
In my experience diversity training has been very much a two way street.
This shit goes way beyond black & white.
Being with a company that has a global market, and in a division that has a global military market, the goal seems to emulate Noah's ark. Gather two (or more), from as many countries as possible. They may be bright and educated, but have no idea how to do their job, indeed, many don't seem to know what their job is.
So we all get mandatory diversity training about these many cultures these people sprouted from. It's something the company can brag about to the government and especially all these foreign customers, but it sure as hell doesn't get the product out the door.
While everyone is singing Kumbaya, I'm grinding my teeth trying to get the support I need to do my job. They could at least leave a bowl of milk out, if they expect it to be done in the morning.
Oh, wait, milk might offend some cultures. :rolleyes:
They probably get some tax benefits too
Is it like that list of countries involved in the A380? Everybody has to do their bit so everybody gets a jobs program?
# Wings - Broughton, Wales
# Fuselage parts - Hamburg, Germany
# Tailfin - Stade, Germany
# Rudder - Puerto Real, Spain
# Nose - Saint Nazaire, France
# Fuselage and cockpit sub-assemblies - Méaulte, France
# Horizontal tailplane - Getafe, Spain
# Final assembly - Toulouse, France
# Cabin installation and painting - Hamburg, Germany
Wow.
"I heard this lady, she was like, 'Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?' She's like, 'I'm scared they might do something to my child,'" said camper Dymire Baylor.
...
The explanation they got was either dishearteningly honest or poorly worded.
"There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club," John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club said in a statement.
Private pool that costs $740 for a family of 4, brings in 65 kids from the ghetto, and the membership gets surprised... priceless.
What is wrong with people?
We belong to a pool. It was a big decision to join, because it's damn expensive. If our pool allowed a day camp to come in with 65 kids at a time, I'd be pissed. Regardless of their skin color. 65 kids will take a moderately crowded pool and turn it into a sardines in a can type of situation. Too damn crowded. Then, on top of that, you can assume the day campers don't know the pool rules and etiquette, so they would probably be causing a bit of a disruption.
If they are going to make the pool available to the camp, they should close it to the members during those hours. Just like a swim meet or water aerobics classes do.
Hopefully, the powers that be at your pool would have enough sense to blame it on crowding, rather than changing the "complexion" or "atmosphere" of your club.
Now excuse me while I drink a cup of tea with my pinky out...oh BIFF, tennis later?
;)
Now excuse me while I drink a cup of tea with my pinky out...oh BIFF, tennis later?
See! That's just it. You can't eat or drink on the pool deck. You have to be up by the sticky picnic tables and trash cans for that tea. Watch out for the yellow jackets. And no, that's not a racial slur. ;)
:)
I think about the municipal pool when I was younger...it was probably kind of gross, in retrospect. I could ride my bike to it, though. Mostly, it was about what boys were there.
Oh, and the yellow jackets and the hot potato sticks covered in ketchup and the high dive and the catch games (when the deep-end lifeguard would let us) and all that stuff.
Our pool isn't that expensive, but members (of all ethnic origins) would still be pretty mad if a day camp were allowed in during regular swim hours, no matter how much money it made the pool. The whole thing about private pools is that they are quiet and -especially with small pools- members all know one another and are far more respectful of one another than patrons at a public pool. This means that pools can adopt more relaxed rules and etiquette because there is less requirement for guards and pool staff to reiterate and enforce rules. Also, when there are just families, there is a much higher adult/kid ratio so parents help youngsters stay in line and learn the etiquette. When you add busloads of kids with a few couselors, pool staff become babysitters and blanket bans on everything are much easier to explain and enforce when you have a whole load of people who don't know each other too well, but are much less condusive to a nice day at the pool.
clearly, here the management made a stupid greed-based decision and handles the backlash poorly. No doubt there was some racism/elitism in the reactions from some of the members, but the blame for this lies firmly with the pool management.
A solution? A solution to individual perceptions and attitudes?
Word.
Man, some real racists up there in Ohio.... and most of the US thinks the South is racist.
Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family
Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.
But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.
It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.
Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.
The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.
''This was almost like being a terrorist act,'' Marshall said. ''And we allow this to go on in our neighborhoods?''
They said it started when one teen, without any words or warning, blindsided and assaulted Marshall's friend as he stood outside with the others.
When Marshall, 39, jumped in, he found himself being attacked by the growing group of teens.
His daughter, Rachel, 15, who weighs about 90 pounds, tried to come to his rescue. The teens pushed her to the ground.
His wife, Yvonne, pushed their son, Donald, 14, into bushes to keep him protected.
''My thing is,'' Marshall said, ''I didn't want this, but I was in fear for my wife, my kids and my friends. I felt I had to stay out there to protect them, because those guys were just jumping, swinging fists and everything.
''I'm lucky. They didn't break my ribs or bruise my ribs. I thank God, they concentrated on my thick head because I do have one. They were trying to take my head off my spine, basically.''
After several minutes of punches and kicks, the attack ended and the group ran off. The Marshalls' two adult male friends were not seriously hurt.
''I don't think I thought at that moment when I tried to jump in,'' Rachel Marshall said. ''But when I was laying on the ground, I was just scared.''
Marshall was the most seriously injured. He suffered a concussion and multiple bruises to his head and eye. He said he spent five nights in the critical care unit at Akron General Medical Center.
The construction worker said he now fears for his family's safety, and the thousands of dollars in medical bills he faces without insurance.
''I knew I was going to get beat, but not as bad as I did,'' Marshall said. ''But I did it to protect my family. I didn't have a choice. There was no need for this. We should be all getting along. But to me, it seems to be racist.''
Akron police are investigating. Right now, the case is not being classified as a racial hate crime. There were no other reports of victims assaulted by the group that night.
The department's gang unit is involved in the investigation, police said.
''We don't know if it's a known gang, or just a group of kids,'' police Lt. Rick Edwards said.
The Marshalls say they fear retaliation at home or when they go outside. They are considering arming themselves, but they're concerned about the possible problems that come with guns.
For now, they are hoping police can bring them suspects. They believe they can identify several of the attackers.
''This makes you think about your freedom,'' Marshall said. ''In all reality, where is your freedom when you have this going on?''
Why am I afraid it will eventually be found that the whole story is BS? 3 drunk white guys decide to beat on eachother and blame it on a roving mob of black kids.
Man, some real racists up there in Ohio.... and most of the US thinks the South is racist.
Would this be a bad time to say Go Bucks!? You know. Ohio State Buckeyes. :bolt:
Anyway, it could have been anywhere. Not all of us think that people in the south are racist. I know it's everywhere.
Is this Personal Inner Vengeance Agenda Day?
Well as one poster stated, it could be a Tawana Brawley type event. I guess we will see.
Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys,
If they had shot the first dozen, the others would have thought twice.
Why am I afraid it will eventually be found that the whole story is BS? 3 drunk white guys decide to beat on eachother and blame it on a roving mob of black kids.
Or the white guys started it. Who knows?
If they had shot the first dozen, the others would have thought twice.
Yeah, shooting unarmed teens is always a good thing. :right:
What if the black teens had been armed, and shot the white family? Yippy guns! In this situation, nobody died. The family still has a father, parents of the group of teens still have their children.
Oh goody, dozens of parents still have their little hoodlums... until they are jailed raping their teacher or for killing a cop, because nobody taught them there are consequences for gangsterism, this time.
Yeah...gettin shot and killed. Now there's a proper lesson in life...
Yeah, just get a few dozen friends together and you can terrorize/beat people with impunity. Now there's a proper lesson in life...
Are you seriously suggesting that it would have been a much better outcome, had some of those boys been shot?
Yes, teach the rest of them a lesson they won't soon forget.
You can let these punks beat on you till the cows come home, I will not.
Just shoot their penises (penii?) off. Then they can have their own gang of guys with no dicks. All the other gangs will be so busy laughing at No Dix Gang, with their pink colors and highly-pitched war cries, that they'll totally forget to rape and rampage and thieve and sell crack.
Never burst someone's balloon: just prick them so they know they're leaking.
What if the black teens had been armed, and shot the white family?
Ya fuckin' shoot back, Spexx. (Well, not you. You'd just fucking die right on the spot. End. Finito. Cancel all life memberships.
Become a statistic owing to your mental short circuit.) Didn't you learn anything from your meltdown of a couple years ago??? Were you as intelligent as I, that is as genuinely enlightened, you would have done so by now, but I guess you're just crippled in the head by being such a raving hoplophobe. I must remember to thank God I'm smarter than you, tonight before bedtime...
Why is it that people who love guns get terribly bent out of shape at other people who don't love guns? Is it necessary that I love guns so that I can see as you do? Does the love of guns make you smarter, and a more worthy individual? Really? See, I don't give a rat's ass if you love guns. Love them to death. Sleep with them. Marry them. Who cares?
Expecting everyone to see it as you do, and viewing them as lesser if they don't, only serves to make you look like the fool.
I will never ever order a pizza with you. I am sure that my hate of mushrooms will be met with disdain, disbelief, and disgust...and will result in receiving a pizza with mushrooms because you are right and I am just stupid to hate mushrooms. You'll tell me to pick them off, but I will know that the scent and taste and general essence of mushrooms linger long after I've flicked the offending fungus at your face.
Why is it that people who love guns get terribly bent out of shape at other people who don't love guns?
I don't think most do get bent out of shape. Well they may only get bent out of shape at the ones who want to further restrict our proctect right to own and shoot them or place other restrictions on ownership or shooting. Other than that it is really a non-issue. :D
UG gets bent out of shape. Clearly my post indicates I don't care who you all shoot. Shoot each other for all I care, but I reserve the right to think guns are icky. ;)
UG gets bent out of shape over evrything.
I get bent out of shape over fatuity. Happens here a lot. I'm never the one.
Why is it that people who love guns get terribly bent out of shape at other people who don't love guns? Is it necessary that I love guns so that I can see as you do? Does the love of guns make you smarter, and a more worthy individual? Really? See, I don't give a rat's ass if you love guns. Love them to death. Sleep with them. Marry them. Who cares?
The haters of guns are the makers and facilitators of genocide -- or on the retail scale, murder and other savagery. The sacred principle of self-defense, which is inalienable, must in consequence of its sacredness never be messed with. Prohibiting it makes genocide possible -- and it's the most efficient way to make genocide possible.
A good many people do stay ignorant of the gun-control/genocide connection, though. Yet it's hardly a secret.
A decent man is offended by genocides or pogroms. These become impossible once their targets are armed.
Now really, given all the above, where's the huge giant problem with seeing as clearly as I do? Why wouldn't you? -- for I know that this is an act of will,
not to see this as I do.
Expecting everyone to see it as you do, and viewing them as lesser if they don't, only serves to make you look like the fool.
Perhaps to the aberrant, and the genocide lovers. Not to the people of depth and wisdom, whom I do esteem, and who are not fools.
They get that murder and genocide are icky. By comparison, your own private AK looks positively angelic.
I will never ever order a pizza with you. I am sure that my hate of mushrooms will be met with disdain, disbelief, and disgust...and will result in receiving a pizza with mushrooms because you are right and I am just stupid to hate mushrooms. You'll tell me to pick them off, but I will know that the scent and taste and general essence of mushrooms linger long after I've flicked the offending fungus at your face.
Mind if I call you a dreadful, anti-hobbit philistine, then? :rolleyes: [Given my untrammeled druthers, I like sausage plus black olives and mushrooms on pizza.]
There may be no accounting for taste, but there
is an accounting for resisting crime and genocide, which are evils. That's where the gun lovers are better than those unenlightened gun haters. That is where the gun lovers look so much farther ahead than the gun haters. This is what improves the gun lovers so much over the gun haters.
I'll bet you never even thought of any of this.
No, uh, I don't no how to think...I stupid and moronick.
Go jack off on your big gun, you big man. You know you want to. Your big gun is what sets you apart from others. We thought it was your big brain, but we were wrong. Thanks for explaining things to me. I'm headed to the gun and knife show because I'm scared of society.
The haters of guns are the makers and facilitators of genocide -- or on the retail scale, murder and other savagery. The sacred principle of self-defense, which is inalienable, must in consequence of its sacredness never be messed with. Prohibiting it makes genocide possible -- and it's the most efficient way to make genocide possible.
Yeah man. It's the fucking pacifists who make the world dangerous. Bet that was the problem in Rwanda eh? People just didn't want to have weaponry. There just wasn't enough weaponry about to end the bloodshed. Mayube if they'd had a handful more machetes, just a sprinkling more of AK-47s, maybe then there'd have been a pleasanter outcome.
Generally speaking my country leaves its guns in the hands of the professionals. Occasionally that leads to an unnecessary and unjust death. It has never, and I don't believe it ever will, lead to a genocide at the hands of an armed state.
However much you guys arm, you will never and can never arm yourselves to the extent that your military can. Your guns may well protect you from armed robbers or intruders with ill intent. They may even cause any government who chose to commit genocide against any people within the USA some measure of concern and cost. But they wouldn't save you against the world's most advanced and well-funded military. An armed populace is no defence against genocide. It may, theoretically, be a defence against governmental oppression, inasmuch as it may make the cost of success rise too high to be paid. If the government wanted to conduct a war against its own people, and had military or vigilante support for that war, all the underground survival shelters and serried rows of tinned beans won't save them, and nor would hunting rifles, however loosely that term is applied.
Prohibiting it makes genocide possible -- and it's the most efficient way to make genocide possible.
Where would you rather live, smart boy... Britain, where the population doesn't have guns, or Iraq, where they do?
It's a simple question and I expect a direct answer.
Smart boy was here and didn't answer... again
He's composing an answer about how stupid we all are. I expect it will take some time. ;)
He's composing an answer about how stupid we all are. I expect it will take some time. ;)
bwahahahahahahahahaaa!!! :D Good one Shawnee!
Poor UG. He's soooooo misunderstood.
Don't you people know he's just trying to help you live a better life for yourselves???!!!
Yeah man. It's the fucking pacifists who make the world dangerous.
Pacifists like Neville Chamberlain? He made the world safer? :haha:
Where would you rather live, smart boy... Britain, where the population doesn't have guns, or Iraq, where they do?
It's a simple question and I expect a direct answer.
No it's not, a simple question is, would you rather live in North Korea with no guns or the United States with guns?
Where would you rather live, smart boy... Britain, where the population doesn't have guns, or Iraq, where they do?
It's a simple question and I expect a direct answer.
Iraq. Because I am not a sheep, nor am I your strawman. Braver than you, too, I daresay.
Poor UG. He's soooooo misunderstood.
Don't you people know he's just trying to help you live a better life for yourselves???!!!
They don't know it. They can't believe there
is a better lifeway than theirs... yet whenever they try to show it's an improvement, they just fail. My way of life adds up to a reproach to their way of life.
They don't, I think, actually misunderstand me. But I do make them acutely, terribly uncomfortable with their lives' choices. Somehow, I can always show where they're messed up. Loud is the ululating BAaaAAAaaaWWWW that comes out.
What should I feel for the people cleaving to distant second- or third-best?
Pacifists don't make the world so dangerous -- they make the body counts so much bigger. No thanks.
You do make me laugh UG. ;)
Ugh, such a depressing answer. But direct, I'll give you that.
THINK smrtboy, THINK! When faced with real-world evidence that directly contradicts your theory, what do you do next?
Does it contradict? Why would you think it does?
An armed populace is no defence against genocide.
You might as well claim there is no defense whatsoever against genocide -- that we all owe our lives to the suffrance of our governments. Sounds untenable to me.
It's actually the sole known defense against genocide. The state is no bulwark against it, not when the state's power is needed to carry it out. I can't name a private genocide. Armed populaces also don't suffer genocides -- they only work that way when the targets can't shoot back. Civil wars don't amount to genocides, everything taken into consideration.
Three things need to line up before you can get a genocide going: gun control -- bans, that is; hatred, however rationalized, be it class, race, religion, whatever -- hatred must drive the egregious action; and governmental power, either to do the genocide directly or cover the activities of those who perform it. Of these three, gun control by law is the most efficient tool and the most vulnerable one -- you can repeal a law. Once that leg is off the stool, genocide becomes impracticable. Remove another, and it ends up unthinkable.
It may, theoretically, be a defence against governmental oppression, inasmuch as it may make the cost of success rise too high to be paid.
That approach has worked rather well in keeping our Republic a republic
and politically stable. Arms keeping also did not affect the sociopolitical stability of the UK, either.
If the government wanted to conduct a war against its own people, and had military or vigilante support for that war, all the underground survival shelters and serried rows of tinned beans won't save them, and nor would hunting rifles, however loosely that term is applied.
This sort of remark is a reliable indicator that the speaker has never studied how guerrilla warfare works, and is ignorant of the principle that a lesser weapon may be used and directed to obtain a greater. I've never seen any of such people exhibit any understanding of guerrilla or unconventional strategy, either.
Iraq + every house has an AK-47 = Saddam Hussein's totalitarian dictatorship
Britain + almost no houses have firearm = Democratic Republic
Explain.
It might be worthwhile pointing out to UG that Great Britain is an ancient culture compared to that of the US who in comparison are but infants in the history of western culture. It is possible that GB has been through and grown out of all these noble ideas that UG holds so dearly.
...Were you as intelligent as I...
Why would I want to cut my IQ in half?
...Go jack off on your big gun...
I think he likes long barrels stuck up his ass.
Gun control and its benefits and dangers are directly related to culture and type of government.
For culture, compare, by generalizing, how guns are treated in rural versus urban areas of the United States. Note how guns are treated with much more respect in rural areas while guns are not treated with respect but objects of power in urban areas. This helps explain why guns can lead to a safer society in rural areas but not urban ones.
Also, rejection of laws must be taken into account as well. The reason why gun control laws can work in Britain but not the US is because the gun culture is so much different. Guns are looked at much differently in Britain as opposed to the US so if the US tried a gun control law using Britain's as its template, it would expected that a backlash from responsible and right-defending gun owners along with a deadly and very large black market would follow.
For government, just fucking think about it. Britain has no intention to commit genocide on its population because it does not try to physically control them. North Korea could intend to commit genocide on its population because it does try to physically control them.
For this reason I believe that the extent of gun control and the resistance to its laws should be dependent on culture, government, and obviously what types of guns are available.
The US, for example, does not have a uniform gun culture so it should be obvious that no single gun control law will prove to be the most effective at curbing gun violence. Also, it must be taken into account that the US does not have any intention at physically controlling its population and any attempt to control guns will result in massive outcry (partially dependent on location) and a massive black market because of the large gun culture already in place.
Britain + almost no houses have firearm = Democratic Republic
Constitutional Monarchy. NOT a republic.
Why would I want to cut my IQ in half?
I think he likes long barrels stuck up his ass.
Your math is in error, Spexx. I'm the antigenocide one here, you are visibly not. Your IQ would rise by fifty to seventy points, were you to shed your hoplophobia.
And your antigun/anti-civil liberties/nanny-state/pro-crime/pro-genocide prejudices show in your second comment, and they besmirch you, leaving upon you an ineradicable odor of death. Growing wrathful against anticrime and antigenocide measures does not bespeak intelligence, but instead, neurosis.
You have no conscious realization of how completely you are shamed by your own words. That doesn't, however, remain hidden from me. You certainly don't qualify to offer me any humiliation, however much you'd like to. I have your measure, and you are not exceeding it. This is what maladjustment does, Spexxvet. Mine is the ascendancy, for as long as I am what I am, and you are what you are.
Turning to some others:
Ali, for several reasons I don't think so. One of them is that the US is a republic, where the source of political power is manifestly the electorate, and that this is that power's proper repository. One aspect of this -- and a grim one to be sure -- is the power of killing. Without the electorate retaining that power, a republic decays into an oligarchy.
Not the preferred choice, by a long chalk. A general distribution of killing power keeps power itself on a short leash with a force as relentless as gravity, and to prevent excesses of power, such leashing must never be compromised. We've all seen what happens when it is.
UT: one thing to consider -- as of when do Iraq's houses each have their AKs? During Saddam, or afterwards? I don't know, and I don't think you know either. During Saddam's time, revolts would, I think, have been more successful with an AK in every house, not so? This is why I haven't been much influenced by your example either time you've offered it.
When England had guns all through its society, it also had a crime rate so low that English policemen went about armed about equally with a nightstick and slightly stuffy virtue -- and were effective. It is now widely known that with arms sweep-ups, anyone willing to defy UK gun bans can now oppress hundreds at a stroke, and armed crime is steadily becoming increasingly popular. A highly socially stable place like England would use private arms to about the best possible effect in crime suppression. E.g.: "It isn't done, old fellow, and if you try doing it, we'll bloody well blow you in two." [Goofball Napoleonic reference:
But we'll not quarter -- cuttin' ya in twa halves inteet will be enow. (Battle of Quatre Bras)]
Shawnee: you know what? Freud didn't say hardly anything about guns at all. It was something like one sentence in his work on interpreting dreams, mentioned among several other objects including fountain pens and umbrellas, and maybe Zeppelins. The sentence really doesn't bear the kind of interpretations loaded upon it in the decades since.
Shawnee: you know what? Freud didn't say hardly anything about guns at all. It was something like one sentence in his work on interpreting dreams, mentioned among several other objects including fountain pens and umbrellas, and maybe Zeppelins. The sentence really doesn't bear the kind of interpretations loaded upon it in the decades since.
Oh well, then take your fountain pen and go...write something.
:lol:
Here I am... :p
Meanwhile, see "Professor Gates, Harvard's Pride for a bit of an ego stroke.
Gun rights advocates who suggest reasonable gun control in the US, enacted through the legislative process and affirmed by an independent judiciary, is the first step down the slippery slope towards genocide comparable to the oppressive anti-democratic regimes of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia....
...are
"wing nuts" IMHO :eek:
"Pot, meet Kettle." There is no animal known as "reasonable gun control" among the Demoncrats in this country.
Gun rights advocates who suggest reasonable gun control in the US, enacted through the legislative process and affirmed by an independent judiciary, is the first step down the slippery slope towards genocide comparable to the oppressive anti-democratic regimes of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia....
...are "wing nuts" IMHO :eek:
"Pot, meet Kettle." There is no animal known as "reasonable gun control" among the Demoncrats in this country.
Sure...the Brady Law, the last significance US gun control legislation enacted 16 years ago, almost entirely on a party line vote, was the first step towards genocide.
Sure...the Brady Law, the last significance US gun control legislation enacted 16 years ago, almost entirely on a party line vote, was the first step towards genocide.
No, it was the first step towards removing a Constitutional Right that I have to own guns, even the ugly ones.
No, it was the first step towards removing a Constitutional Right that I have to own guns, even the ugly ones.
Hey....I think its great that you are not in the UG gun control --> genocide camp.
At the same, in its 200+ year history, the Supreme Court has never affirmed that 2nd Amendment rights are absolute...and that includes the most recent ruling by the conservative leaning Court that struck down the DC gun law, but also concluded that the Constitution does not prohibit reasonable restrictions or limitations on that right.
Doesn't change the intentions of the Demoncrats in Congress and their ultimate goal to remove my Constitutional right to own guns on my own terms. Even the ugly ones.
Doesn't change the intentions of the Demoncrats in Congress and their ultimate goal to remove my Constitutional right to own guns on my own terms. Even the ugly ones.
Right...all Democrats in Congress, or even just a majority, are united with a common goal of taking away all of your guns or just the ugly ones. :rolleyes:
They're gonna do in the middle of the night with no transparency, tacked on as an amendment to some obscure and benign pierce of legislation that Obama will sign without the pledged 4 day waiting period!
Your IQ would rise by fifty to seventy points, were you to shed your hoplophobia.
What, wait... love guns and you can be in Mensa?
So wait now, I've done a zillion Mensa test thingies (well it feels like a zillion) and my highest score was 147 (lowest was under 130 -what -you thought they were meaningful?) ...so you're saying if I learned to love the gun i could be the first 200IQ?
:lol:
you're so full of bull the stink is clearly having a negative effect on your IQ rating :lol:
UT: one thing to consider -- as of when do Iraq's houses each have their AKs? During Saddam, or afterwards? I don't know, and I don't think you know either. During Saddam's time, revolts would, I think, have been more successful with an AK in every house, not so? This is why I haven't been much influenced by your example either time you've offered it.
It is customary for Iraqi familes to have a rifle. This hasn't changed.
Hundreds of thousands of rifles in private hands didn't cause revolt or prevent a hundred thousand dead in mass graves.
When England had guns all through its society, it also had a crime rate so low that English policemen went about armed about equally with a nightstick and slightly stuffy virtue -- and were effective.
Well, not so effective in Iraq. And not creating a society you'd want to live in. Doesn't that suggest to you that the guns aren't the fulcrum of freedom you think they are?
Doesn't that suggest to you that the guns aren't the fulcrum of freedom you think they are?
That notion was disproved in the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion, when the Federal Government proved it's superiority.
Since the second amendment guaranteed our right to bear arms, and they have been proven not a threat to the government, there is no reason to change that right.
Hundreds of thousands of rifles in private hands didn't cause revolt or prevent a hundred thousand dead in mass graves.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the hundred thousand dead were all Kurds. Does the average Iraqi family care about them?
You can't draw comparisons between gun ownership and Iraq. That is a very long stretch.
They don't like the Kurds. They don't like their ways.
ba dum dum
Here is where UG's assertions about democracies and sacred rights bump into each other.
If, as he maintains, an absolute and unambiguous Constitutional right to bear arms is at the very foundation of a democracy and a democracy cannot exist without it, then by that measure, the new democracy in Iraq is a failure.
The Iraqi constitution identifies many basic rights....free speech, free press, free association, freedom of religion, protection against search and seizure, etc.......even a right to guaranteed work, a living wage and health care.
But no specific language in the Constitution guaranteeing a right to bear arms.
UG...would that make that new Iraq democracy a failure?
*********
They don't like the Kurds. They don't like their ways.
ba dum dum
Whey to go!
See..I am paying attention!
But no specific language in the Constitution guaranteeing a right to bear arms.
You can't be that stupid. :eyebrow:
Ok, I take that back.:rolleyes:
Whey to go!
See..I am paying attention!
:)
The Iraqi constitution identifies many basic rights....free speech, free press, free association, freedom of religion, protection against search and seizure, etc.......even a right to guaranteed work, a living wage and health care.
But no specific language in the Constitution guaranteeing a right to bear arms.
You can't be that stupid. :eyebrow:
Ok, I take that back.:rolleyes:
Are you saying there is?
I am saying that it is an not a very important point when the Iraqi Constitution has no language which guarantees a right to bear arms in a country in the midst of a war/civil war/civil unrest where everyone owns guns. You cannot in any way make a comparison to the US Constitution and our societal norm to Iraq.
I am saying that it is an not a very important point when the Iraqi Constitution has no language which guarantees a right to bear arms in a country in the midst of a war/civil war/civil unrest where everyone owns guns. You cannot in any way make a comparison to the US Constitution and our societal norm to Iraq.
You lost me.
Are you saying that because there is a civil war (there is?) and civil unrest, that a guaranteed right to bear arms might be counter-productive and dangerous and lead to greater civil unrest?
Or, on the other hand, that a democracy can exist without such a guaranteed right when everyone already owns guns?
Or such a guaranteed right is just not that important.
Which is it?
BTW, societal norms at the time of the drafting of the US Constitution...there were pockets of civil unrest (Shay's rebellion) and most everyone owned guns.
You lost me.
Are you saying that because there is a civil war (there is?) and civil unrest, that a guaranteed right to bear arms might be counter-productive and dangerous and lead to greater civil unrest?
No. I am saying it is a non-issue in a country such as Iraq at this stage of their re-birth.
Or, on the other hand, that a democracy can exist without such a guaranteed right when everyone already owns guns?
Or such a guaranteed right is just not that important.
Which is it?
BTW, societal norms at the time of the drafting of the US Constitution...there were pockets of civil unrest (Shay's rebellion) and most everyone owned guns.
And none of this is significant in the greater discussion of the issue of the Second Ammendment in this country. Apples and Oranges.
No. I am saying it is a non-issue in a country such as Iraq at this stage of their re-birth.
And none of this is significant in the greater discussion of the issue of the Second Ammendment in this country. Apples and Oranges.
The discussion was not intended to be about the Second Amendment in the US, but about UG's assertion of the necessity of such an amendment in order to prevent a democracy, at any stage, from heading down a slippery slope to genocide.
The discussion was not intended to be about the Second Amendment in the US, but about UG's assertion of the necessity of such an amendment in order to prevent a democracy, at any stage, from heading down a slippery slope to genocide.
Yep.
I just see things differently from UG.
And to attempt to draw a comparison between the US and Iraq and gun owership in the context of
our situation is pretty stupid.