Gung-ho about guns
Okay, so this is hardly the first time The Blue Meanie has posted a link to a newspaper article, but I couldn't resist <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4412988,00.html"; target="_blank">this one</a>. It's just begging for a frenzied six-page debate on these very boards
Comments
<strong>Words have meanings, and it's too bad that all these revisionist types don't realize that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then what about the words "well-regulated militia?"
I just don't think the Second Amendment is about the right of individuals to (phrased bluntly) kill politicians, which seems to be the popular view now. I think it was about a separation of the nation's army into smaller state armies, with citizens of the states forming the local militias. And what does the US have now? The biggest, most powerful national army in the history of the world. Oops.
simple ain't it?
cuss
According to IISS Military Balance 2001-2002, the largest militaries, by personnel, are the following:
China - 2,310,000 (currently downsizing)
United States - 1,367,700
India - 1,263,000
North Korea - 1,082,000
Russia - 977,100
These figures refer to active uniformed peacetime military forces. Reserves and paramilitary forces are not included, and may be significant, e.g., India has nearly a million personnel in active paramilitary forces, such as border guards.
Such figures also do not describe the quality of the military training, equipment, or personnel.
Ashcroft is a moron, and it causes me grave concern that he is in the position that he is now. Even more concern than about his boss.
-robo
Ashcroft is of the kind of mindset that, had he instead been Afghan, he would have probably become a top Taliban honcho.
Re. guns, the toothpaste is out of the tube, they're everywhere and there's no way that can change, bar wholesale raids, searches and seizures in the homes of Americans. And that could never happen here, could it now?
When in times of emergency (any kind of emergency, including a war) all citizen should participare. Man and woman, young and old, child and adult, and so on. All should participate, ALL.
Of course, we all have our own ways to participate (which doesn't neccessary of doing things directly). But the main point is that, ALL should participate.
As for guns.
A gun is like a compact bow and arrow. Or to be more precise, a cross bow.
When the cross bow was released to the public, one of the benefits of a crossbow is that unlike a bow and arrow, anyone can use it with little skill and power.
As for legal distribution of guns.
In the old days, things were quite simple.
Because, between the weapon maker (that is usually also the weapon giver), the weapon giver, and the weapon user, there's somekind of close relationship. And sometimes, the maker and the user is the same person.
This guarrante from the point of making to the point of using, all of the people involved with the weapons shared the same intention.
So if the weapon maker is a good person, unless he's forced to made one, there will a good chance that the weapon he made will be used for a good reason.
Now. There's little relationship between the weapon maker, the weapon giver, and the weapon user.
Weapon is now made by large factories, who probably don't even know on how the weapon is going to be used.
Weapon is now given by large distributors, who probably only give those weapons for money.
Weapon is now used by any person who just happen to found one.
You're damned right it could and does happen here. *cough*Waco*cough*
As for controversy:
Your first link doesn't work.
Moore is being a salesman:
"At bottom, he believes, those who own guns do so because they're afraid."
Well then he's a moron making generalizations he can't make.
"I don't know if the film is too late for us," he sighs, "but maybe it can be a warning for other countries."
Has he really gotten this fat and arrogant? So all he does now is attack the most self-hating group in America (white American males) and is making some change off of it? How daring he's become!
sad. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>
You're damned right it could and does happen here. *cough*Waco*cough*
As for controversy:
Your first link doesn't work.
Moore is being a salesman:
"At bottom, he believes, those who own guns do so because they're afraid."
Well then he's a moron making generalizations he can't make.
"I don't know if the film is too late for us," he sighs, "but maybe it can be a warning for other countries."
Has he really gotten this fat and arrogant? So all he does now is attack the most self-hating group in America (white American males) and is making some change off of it? How daring he's become!
sad. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Hi Groverat
The first link does work, I just checked it.
[quote] Has he really gotten this fat and arrogant? So all he does now is attack the most self-hating group in America (white American males) and is making some change off of it? How daring he's become!<hr></blockquote>
I thought Moore was talking about the place of the gun in US culture, not white American males. Or are guns and white American males somehow synonymous?
And if he's such an obvious phoney, how come his book 'Stupid White Men' is apparently at the top of the New York Times bestseller list (according to the second article I linked to)?
[quote]I thought Moore was talking about the place of the gun in US culture, not white American males. Or are guns and white American males somehow synonymous?<hr></blockquote>
Well, every damn one of his books is about white American males and his latest bestseller is called "Stupid White Men"... draw your own conclusions, I've had mine. Her certainly isn't in the business of analyzing black culture.
Re: his arrogance.
By saying "maybe my film is too late..." assumes that his film would've helped anything, that he's that important that he could've done something if only he'd acted sooner. NOT ONLY THAT, but that he has the right idea, that he has found the answer. He's gotten fat(ter) and intellectually lazy.
Re: Your first link.
The article itself is garbage, resorting to trite conspiracy gripes and personal attacks that are completely unrelated to the subject at hand. Not surprising coming from a European commentary where the journalists are restricted by such inane concepts as "objectivity".
If you want proof that the founding fathers thought it necessary that the people be allowed to keep and bear arms is the fact that it says it in the amendment. Notice the use of the word "people", it's not there by chance, that's not how these things were written.
[quote]If he's such an obvious phoney, how come his book 'Stupid White Men' is apparently at the top of the New York Times bestseller list (according to the second article I linked to)?<hr></blockquote>
Read your own links. He said how this book is popular, he told you himself: "It's clearly being bought by a lot of stupid white men," he chuckles. "Maybe we're a self-hating lot."
<strong>Yargh, IE6 isn't down with the link. That'll teach me to stop using Opera for 5 minutes.
Read your own links. He said how this book is popular, he told you himself: "It's clearly being bought by a lot of stupid white men," he chuckles. "Maybe we're a self-hating lot."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, throwing around hysterical words like "garbage" suggests to me that you're more rattled by this than you're admitting. But I couldn't really comment on these issues, being a Brit and all.
Yeah, I do read my own links and of course I saw Moore's comment about 'stupid white men' being a "self-hating lot". I just wanted to see what you thought. But there has to be more to it than that. As an answer, that doesn't address any of the issues Moore raised in the book.
Anyway, I note from today's papers that Moore was accosted by an over-excited compatriot yesterday who claimed his documentary on the Columbine massacre made him "a traitor" to America......There's reasoned debate for you
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>
Moore is being a salesman:
"At bottom, he believes, those who own guns do so because they're afraid."
Well then he's a moron making generalizations he can't make.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, that generalization is OK with me. Sure, I'm afraid -- that's one reason that I own a gun, among many reasons. What M. Moore is doing is to use that "afraid" to prey upon people's sense of pride. I'll admit I'm afraid, and I should be. I would also like to share that fear with housebreakers.