I find blaming Obama for our fiscal woes amusing, but not surprising.
Bush Jr. killed pay-go. Bush enacted Medicare Part 4. Bush started not one, but two wars, all while cutting taxes several times, sometimes over the protests of members of his own party (once requiring Cheney to break a Senate deadlock to get it done).
Of course, Bush wasn't the problem, either: As a politician who took the easy road, he was a symptom. A symptom of a society that refuses to live within it's means, that wants to have it's cake (gimme gimme gimme), and eat it too (tax cuts!).
Obama can't fix it. Whomever replaces Obama can't fix it. At best, the president (whoever is holding the office) can sell the public this (very unpopular) message: Fixing this is going to hurt us all, and a lot. Everyone is going to lose something. I had hoped Obama could sell the message, and inspire a willingness to sacrifice for the greater good. Unfortunately, he as (so far) failed utterly in this respect.
The truth is that ONLY WE CAN FIX THIS. Demand a balanced budget, but start at home. Cut up your credit cards. Quit buying stuff you can't afford. Keep that older car a few more years. Save. Invest. Quit holding your hand to the government, and hold your representatives accountable when they spend money we don't have. Most of all, when you're asked to sacrifice, don't blindly dig your heels in and insist someone else bear the pain.
Together, we can make speaking the truth and making the hard decisions a political necessity, instead of the political liability it is now.
I like how every single comment blames Obama for the entire national debt, for taxes, and for every other ill they can imagine, past and present. The dude's a tool, yes, but he didn't cause all these problems. We all did. It's time to man up and deal with them instead of looking for scapegoats.
Wasn't there talk that the debt would double (what had built up from the beginning of the entire Union) under Obama? I haven't heard anything about it for a while, but I remember there was some talk about it.
|
I like how every single comment blames Obama for the entire national debt, for taxes, and for every other ill they can imagine, past and present. The dude's a tool, yes, but he didn't cause all these problems. We all did. It's time to man up and deal with them instead of looking for scapegoats.
My biggest problem with Obama isn't even an Obama problem. I knew going in he was an empty suit Chicago machine politician with (like his predecessor) no business being anywhere near the Oval Office.
My problem with him is all of the idiots who STILL think the dude belongs in the Oval Office. I listen to all these "well informed" "intellectual" leftie dumbasses who apparently have no clue that Europe is over the dude (well, except maybe the UK, they're pretty much as silly as we are in a lot of ways), Asia is laughing in his face, every banana republic dictator loves that he gives them a pass (except Honduras, apparently. Following your Constitution and not allowing a leftie dictator assume power is a bad thing according to the Obama administration), he's allowing the idiot extreme of his party drive policy (amazingly like his predecessor, hmmm), and he spends money like a drunk sorority girl (again, amazingly like the previous guy he's supposed to be so much better than).
God, I haven't seen a guy this ineffective since, well, his predecessor.
I believe in seafood.
|
Yup, the rest of the world hates Obama so much they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize. I'd also suggest you read this polling data, and see that actually, Obama's pretty well liked.
Also, you do realise that Obama's pretty much let down most of the liberals, in terms of policy? Gitmo's still not closed. UHC is dead. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is still around. No real deal on climate change and no support for Gay Marriage. So saying that the extreme edge of his party drives policy is blatant nonsense.
|
|
Yup, the rest of the world hates Obama so much they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize. I'd also suggest you read this polling data, and see that actually, Obama's pretty well liked.
Also, you do realise that Obama's pretty much let down most of the liberals, in terms of policy? Gitmo's still not closed. UHC is dead. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is still around. No real deal on climate change and no support for Gay Marriage. So saying that the extreme edge of his party drives policy is blatant nonsense.
I was discussing, um, governments. Yeah, the masses like the guy, but then, the masses probably think the Sunday comics are actual news. Again, Poland and the Czech Republic won't even talk to the guy, Der Spiegel is having a field day with his incompetence, the Guardian (you know, your left of center paper) published an editorial from their editorial staff pining for the days of Bush (and not because they like or agree with Bush, mind you, but because at least he had a spine), Sarcozy thinks he's a joke, Jiabao knows Obama is a lightweight he doesn't have to take seriously, the banana republic dictators in this hemisphere see him as a kindred spirit, yeah, your poll means nothing (and is six months old, which is a lifetime ago in politics).
As to the Nobel prize, yeah. Uh-huh. Sorry, they've been irrelevant ever since they gave that great humanitarian Yasser Arafat the prize.
Obama was so popular he didn't get the Olympics, didn't get squat from the Copenhagen conference, and...
Wait, you're British, see my parenthetical statement in my previous post.
|
|
Yup, the rest of the world hates Obama so much they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize. I'd also suggest you read this polling data, and see that actually, Obama's pretty well liked.
Also, you do realise that Obama's pretty much let down most of the liberals, in terms of policy? Gitmo's still not closed. UHC is dead. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is still around. No real deal on climate change and no support for Gay Marriage. So saying that the extreme edge of his party drives policy is blatant nonsense.
They drive policy and his agenda. The sane centrists in the House and Senate are the ones putting the brakes on Pelosi and Reid, not Obama. Try again.
|
|
And Governments will do what they've always done. That is, defend the interests of their nation on the international stage. What Obama's done is raised the image of the US worldwide, so that nations actually feel comfortable supporting the US agenda and leadership on the world stage.
No one expected Chicago to gain the Olympics, but typically of the American conservatives, they attacked Obama for even trying. The appeal of giving Rio them, especially as it'd be the first time the Olympics would be held in Latin America, was rather strong. Copenhagen was a disaster from the get go, but at least Obama tried. It can't be helped if China blocks international efforts, in addition to Danish incompetence in running the show.
Just as an aside, insulting me isn't perhaps in line with the 'Play Nice in the political threads' policy.
|
|
They drive policy and his agenda. The sane centrists in the House and Senate are the ones putting the brakes on Pelosi and Reid, not Obama. Try again.Yup, the rest of the world hates Obama so much they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize. I'd also suggest you read this polling data, and see that actually, Obama's pretty well liked.
Also, you do realise that Obama's pretty much let down most of the liberals, in terms of policy? Gitmo's still not closed. UHC is dead. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is still around. No real deal on climate change and no support for Gay Marriage. So saying that the extreme edge of his party drives policy is blatant nonsense.
Which explains why Obama never once went to bat for UHC, and why Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which would require an executive order to end, is still in existence. Infact, he's never really gone to bat for any form of Gay Rights yet. If anything, Obama's being very moderate in his views, something that's frustrated the liberals in America.
|
|
And Governments will do what they've always done. That is, defend the interests of their nation on the international stage. What Obama's done is raised the image of the US worldwide, so that nations actually feel comfortable supporting the US agenda and leadership on the world stage.
No one expected Chicago to gain the Olympics, but typically of the American conservatives, they attacked Obama for even trying. The appeal of giving Rio them, especially as it'd be the first time the Olympics would be held in Latin America, was rather strong. Copenhagen was a disaster from the get go, but at least Obama tried. It can't be helped if China blocks international efforts, in addition to Danish incompetence in running the show.
Just as an aside, insulting me isn't perhaps in line with the 'Play Nice in the political threads' policy.
Saying you're as silly as Americans is insulting? Thin skin much?
|
|
Saying you're as silly as Americans is insulting? Thin skin much?And Governments will do what they've always done. That is, defend the interests of their nation on the international stage. What Obama's done is raised the image of the US worldwide, so that nations actually feel comfortable supporting the US agenda and leadership on the world stage.
No one expected Chicago to gain the Olympics, but typically of the American conservatives, they attacked Obama for even trying. The appeal of giving Rio them, especially as it'd be the first time the Olympics would be held in Latin America, was rather strong. Copenhagen was a disaster from the get go, but at least Obama tried. It can't be helped if China blocks international efforts, in addition to Danish incompetence in running the show.
Just as an aside, insulting me isn't perhaps in line with the 'Play Nice in the political threads' policy.
I would certainly have been more insulted if it was 'as silly as a Libertarian', but I see no need at all to call anyone 'Silly', nor to bring it up in an argument. I also see you didn't respond to any of my points either. Shame really.
|
|
I would certainly have been more insulted if it was 'as silly as a Libertarian', but I see no need at all to call anyone 'Silly', nor to bring it up in an argument. I also see you didn't respond to any of my points either. Shame really.Saying you're as silly as Americans is insulting? Thin skin much?And Governments will do what they've always done. That is, defend the interests of their nation on the international stage. What Obama's done is raised the image of the US worldwide, so that nations actually feel comfortable supporting the US agenda and leadership on the world stage.
No one expected Chicago to gain the Olympics, but typically of the American conservatives, they attacked Obama for even trying. The appeal of giving Rio them, especially as it'd be the first time the Olympics would be held in Latin America, was rather strong. Copenhagen was a disaster from the get go, but at least Obama tried. It can't be helped if China blocks international efforts, in addition to Danish incompetence in running the show.
Just as an aside, insulting me isn't perhaps in line with the 'Play Nice in the political threads' policy.
Well, seeing as you expect a spineless empty suit who has no clue how to either govern nor lead to do anything, I'd almost go as far as saying you have no point.
Well, seeing as you expect a spineless empty suit who has no clue how to either govern nor lead to do anything, I'd almost go as far as saying you have no point.
Houston:
Mockery is never a good argument. What you're doing isn't debating; it's belittling the other guy. That's your right, of course; and while it feels good, just don't be surprised when people respond in kind. If you truly wish to win others to your view, which I believe you do, you would be better served by changing tactics.
Back to Obama:
Obviously our opinions of him differ. I think he means well, and he's obviously extremely bright, but he's bitten off more than he can chew. I know many see him as weak, but to me, military might and the willingness to use it aren't signs of strength. Rather, restraint and kindness are. As for the man himself, I do worry that he could be the next Carter.
P.S. I just don't get the "ZOMG teleprompter!1!" meme; All presidents use them. Bush literally could barely speak in complete sentences with a teleprompter. It's like saying "yeah, but he always wears a suit!" WTF?
Wasn't there talk that the debt would double (what had built up from the beginning of the entire Union) under Obama? I haven't heard anything about it for a while, but I remember there was some talk about it.
That is correct. If he gets his way, the debt is projected to double from pre-Obama levels. I hope that (at this, at least) he doesn't get his way; there's no more time to push the problem to the next guy.
|
|
Seriously folks. I can't believe some of the crap most of you spouted off about Bush is "proper debate" (please don't make me link all of the relevant quotes, y'all know what you said), but my voicing my opinion about a man who is just as unqualified as his predecessor to lead a Boy Scout troop, let alone a nation, is somehow "beneath proper dignity".
Whatever.
@Bugleyman, yes, military might and belligerence do not make a leader great, but neither does footprints on one's back. One man's restraint and kindness is another man's spinelessness. I find Obama to be the latter.
Ah, heated debate. At least that's got the intarwebs warm. My apartment is freezing....
Trying to get us back on the same page on some things here. I believe it was about a page back and a day ago that people were talking about prison. Liberal, conservative or not, I think most of us can agree that the current prison system is NOT in the rehabilitation business. However, the effectiveness of solitary confinement as a punishment cannot be denied. Can pro death penalty folk and anti-death penalty folk see this as a resonable compramise on the subject? That would be something to see, and make me feel damn good about this thread.
In terms of the older topic of guns, it seems we are destined to disagree. I'm very much in favor of some kind of serious federal-level restrictions on it that should go for the entire country, this way noone gets confused by municipality. Truth be told, I have no problem if the country adopts a Texan view on the subject backed up by law, however, the missing sentence as pointed out by an earlier poster must play a factor in this perfect gun controlled/uncontrolled world
Finally, Obama. I still like the guy as a person. I doubt HD would spit on him if he passed. Although our opinions on him differ, I agree he needs some more iron in his diet, which is where he and I may have to leave the conversation/topic. I would only counsel that any disagreements with him that any of us have should be kept on a policy-based level, and avoid personal attacks OR hate(well, anger really, hate might be taking things too far)-filled diatribes/opinions. We're on page godknowswhat of a thread that the original poster doesn't even visit any more. I think we're moving in some strange never-before seen direction when it comes to political discussions on the intarbutts(note- intarbutts added for humor, not mockery. Dear reader, please crack a smile, even if it's not heartfelt). If we keep moving in this direction, we might get him and a lot of others back. Let's do this.
|
|
I don't hate the guy, he's never kicked my cat or anything. I am just amazed that a guy who, for all practical purposes, really is no better than Bush (he's just bad in a different way) gets so much love for this supposed good job he's doing. The reason he hasn't made any moves on DADT, NCLB, gay marriage, or a host of other issues is he is in so far over his head, and really has never been in a position of leadership, that he seems paralyzed by the responsibility he found himself shouldering long before he really should have.
It doesn't help that he's surrounded himself with either total incompetents (Biden, Napolitano, Geithner) or Chicagoland strong arm Dealy disciples (Emmanuel).
Heck, even Dealy made some disparaging comments about the guy's mettle.
Oh well.
I don't hate the guy, he's never kicked my cat or anything. I am just amazed that a guy who, for all practical purposes, really is no better than Bush (he's just bad in a different way) gets so much love for this supposed good job he's doing.
I think he has great intentions, but has yet to be very effective. In fact, he may never be, but (to me) he has the potential.
I do appreciate that you took the time to go into specific reasons you don't like him, though. That's more useful than general statements of dislike.
|
|
Actually, it's due to the Democrats general weakness in most areas. Unlike the Republicans, who upon deciding on a course of action, bully Senators into obeying and keep on message, the Democrats allow a few 'sane Centrists' to hold the entire presidency hostage. This is a long term problem for the Democrats. Really, they need a Josh Lyman around to strong arm some Senators. Hell, even Cenk Uygur would do the job. If anything, the Democrats need to learn from Republican tactics in controlling the Senate, 59 seats or not.
Anyway, regarding Prison, I'd change the whole system so that only the worst of the worst gets stuck in prison. Everyone else gets rehabilitation. So no drug addicts, petty thieves and the like going into prison.
However, the effectiveness of solitary confinement as a punishment cannot be denied. Can pro death penalty folk and anti-death penalty folk see this as a resonable compramise on the subject? That would be something to see, and make me feel damn good about this thread.
Depends on what you mean by "effectiveness", as a means of mental torture? Sure, I'd agree it is effective for that. As a means of deterient and/or rehabilitation, I am not so much convinced. Frankly, the idea of locking someone up like that for what might be decades makes my skin crawl. I think putting them down like a sick animal would be more humane than that. Funny how we are willing to treat animals in more humane fashions than we are willing to treat actual ... you know ... humans.
However, the effectiveness of solitary confinement as a punishment cannot be denied. Can pro death penalty folk and anti-death penalty folk see this as a resonable compramise on the subject? That would be something to see, and make me feel damn good about this thread.Depends on what you mean by "effectiveness", as a means of mental torture? Sure, I'd agree it is effective for that. As a means of deterient and/or rehabilitation, I am not so much convinced. Frankly, the idea of locking someone up like that for what might be decades makes my skin crawl. I think putting them down like a sick animal would be more humane than that. Funny how we are willing to treat animals in more humane fashions than we are willing to treat actual ... you know ... humans.
Well, actually I meant in place of the death penalty, but I wasn't very clear. I think I was a little high on Jet hopes/sad realities yesterday, and am now coming down off it.
Seriously folks. I can't believe some of the crap most of you spouted off about Bush is "proper debate" (please don't make me link all of the relevant quotes, y'all know what you said), but my voicing my opinion about a man who is just as unqualified as his predecessor to lead a Boy Scout troop, let alone a nation, is somehow "beneath proper dignity".
Whatever.
@Bugleyman, yes, military might and belligerence do not make a leader great, but neither does footprints on one's back. One man's restraint and kindness is another man's spinelessness. I find Obama to be the latter.
I wanted to wait a while before responding to you to make sure I didn't do so largely out of annoyance, so please take this for what it is: A measured, carefully considered response.
It's isn't voicing your opinion that's a problem: It's the way you choose to go about it. It's calling people who disagree with you names. For example, calling Obama supporters stupid. It's dismissing the concerns of others with nothing more than a glib "whatever." It's a pattern of behavior that is, to put it bluntly, arrogant. Hell, even writing "proper debate" in quotation marks reeks of belittlement.
But you're so sure you're right. I get it. I've been there (and, no doubt, will be again). But I have to tell you in no uncertain terms: None of us understand the world as well as we think we do, and few things are as simple as we imagine them to be. There are many people who are smarter (and better educated) than either of us who disagree with us. Disagreement, no matter how vehement, is not sufficient condition to write others off as stupid. To do so does everyone, oneself most of all, a great disservice.
Thanks for your thoughts, Lazar, especially for the history lesson in the latter post. You've given me a lot to consider, especially as a black man whose family does not come from the South(though I married into one).
Thank you Bugley, for yours as well. Hopefully this will increase the dialogue and content of this thread.
Honestly, I've never seen how or why states feel like they can ban firearms. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I don't see anything about concealed weapons, or WMDS, but other than that the intent seems pretty clear. If you want to get rid of guns (in a legal sense, that is), you have to change the Constitution. If you can't muster the votes to do that, too bad (and no, I don't own a gun. I just think the law is the law in this case).But what is the Law? the purpose of the 2nd Amendment has been eternally debated. On one side it's an advocation of individual rights of armament, on the other it's no more than the establishment of a states right to form local militia for the purpose of home defense which was written in the context of 13 rebellious colonies forming armies to fight a revolutionary war against the British.
The big questions are never that simple. But there are other historical contexts as well. What we know of the "Wild West" was a period of lawlessness that lasted for about 4 years in any given area being the transition of quick upshot boom towns to functional centers of government. The transition from lawless boom town to operational town state pretty much relied on the disarming of gun use for any but particular sanctioned purposes.
You and I have a radically divergent view of the history of the "wild west", gun control and law enforcement.
I'll try to find some helpful links before I'm done with lunch.
You and I have a radically divergent view of the history of the "wild west", gun control and law enforcement. I'll try to find some helpful links before I'm done with lunch.
Please do. Most of what I know comes from the History channel and a few specials I watched as a kid. It would be interesting to hear something different.
You and I have a radically divergent view of the history of the "wild west", gun control and law enforcement. I'll try to find some helpful links before I'm done with lunch.Please do. Most of what I know comes from the History channel and a few specials I watched as a kid. It would be interesting to hear something different.
Also our notion of law enforcement in the form of a constant police force is newer than most folks realize. Some communities have only had what we would think of as local law enforcement for the past 50- 100 years. My current municipality has only the County SD for law enforcement, and I've lived in rural areas where response times were 30+ minutes for 911. I didn't feel any less safe, quite the contrary.
Around 20 years ago in rural CO you could bring firearms to school, have the principal hold them (or even leave them in your trucks gun rack), then go hunting after school. Violent crime by strangers was very rare.
An idea that just occured to me on gun control. Maybe everyone who owns a gun should automatically be considered part of their local militia(organized perhaps on a county level), and be made to show a certain level of proficiency with it on a yearly basis and also held up to the by laws of said militia? Would this work?
Still reading your VERY interesting post, Bitter.
You and I have a radically divergent view of the history of the "wild west", gun control and law enforcement. I'll try to find some helpful links before I'm done with lunch.Please do. Most of what I know comes from the History channel and a few specials I watched as a kid. It would be interesting to hear something different.Also our notion of law enforcement in the form of a constant police force is newer than most folks realize. Some communities have only had what we would think of as local law enforcement for the past 50- 100 years. My current municipality has only the County SD for law enforcement, and I've lived in rural areas where response times were 30+ minutes for 911. I didn't feel any less safe, quite the contrary.
Around 20 years ago in rural CO you could bring firearms to school, have the principal hold them (or even leave them in your trucks gun rack), then go hunting after school. Violent crime by strangers was very rare.
VERY interesting and well written. It hasn't changed my mind on the need for some kind of gun control, but this is a fascinating paper. Thank you.
Thoughts on guns in bars, or areas where one's emotions might be running high(say, a football game)?
You and I have a radically divergent view of the history of the "wild west", gun control and law enforcement. I'll try to find some helpful links before I'm done with lunch.Please do. Most of what I know comes from the History channel and a few specials I watched as a kid. It would be interesting to hear something different.Also our notion of law enforcement in the form of a constant police force is newer than most folks realize. Some communities have only had what we would think of as local law enforcement for the past 50- 100 years. My current municipality has only the County SD for law enforcement, and I've lived in rural areas where response times were 30+ minutes for 911. I didn't feel any less safe, quite the contrary.
Around 20 years ago in rural CO you could bring firearms to school, have the principal hold them (or even leave them in your trucks gun rack), then go hunting after school. Violent crime by strangers was very rare.
VERY interesting and well written. It hasn't changed my mind on the need for some kind of gun control, but this is a fascinating paper. Thank you.
Thoughts on guns in bars, or areas where one's emotions might be running high(say, a football game)?
Frontier Violence: Another look
I find it ironic that we equate the wild west with constant violence. The penny dreadfuls and spaghetti westerns portray it that way, but if you exclude violence perpetrated by the US government and others against native American and freedmen the American West was quite different from the popular myth. Of course I believe the treatment of Native Americans and freedmen to be strong arguments in favor of self defense.
EDIT: A degree of skepticism is warranted regarding a historical statistical examination, but I find the reexamination to be informative.
All of the Old West towns cited had draconian gun control, compared with that of the current day. Dodge City's "Dead Line" was so-named because, if you crossed the line into town wearing a gun, the local law enforcement could make you dead.
All of the Old West towns cited had draconian gun control, compared with that of the current day. Dodge City's "Dead Line" was so-named because, if you crossed the line into town wearing a gun, the local law enforcement could make you dead.
Wow. Learn new things every day on this thread!
Also, Kirth, I'd like a response re: my statement above on solitary confinement replacing the death penalty. Still no go on solitary, even if it keeps someone alive should they be wrongly imprisoned?
[Also, Kirth, I'd like a response re: my statement above on solitary confinement replacing the death penalty. Still no go on solitary, even if it keeps someone alive should they be wrongly imprisoned?
I answered that one quite some time ago, when bugleyman asked almost the same thing:
Part of my issue with prisons is the fact that they're a large industry. I firmy believe that possession laws were tightened, and sentences lengthened, during the "war on drugs" in order to maintain and expand what is in essence a major sector of the economy. I believe that we're seeing the same thing right now, with respect to the massive expansion of definitions for "piracy" (do you have a song from Kazaa on your computer?) and "sex offender" (potentially, a guy who pees in his own backyard, if a neighbor sees him) and "child pornography" (picture of your own kid in the bathtub = hard time). The U.S. has by far the most prisoners per capita of any nation on Earth. That bothers me.
Mandatory life sentences without parole would only encourage further expansion of that industry -- every conviction for a major crime would feed the machine for potentially 60 years, instead of 5 or 10 or 20.
If this were not the case, I'd agree with it 100%. Alternatively, if we were able to actually rehabilitate prisoners, I'd be in favor of sentences vs. executions. As it is, it seems like we've painted ourselves into a corner.
All of the Old West towns cited had draconian gun control, compared with that of the current day. Dodge City's "Dead Line" was so-named because, if you crossed the line into town wearing a gun, the local law enforcement could make you dead.
Not completely true Kirth. The "dead line" was only for the commercial part of Dodge city. The rest of the city didn't have any gun laws.
Not completely true Kirth. The dead line was only for the commercial part of Dodge city. The rest of the city didn't have any gun laws.
"The rest of the city" being the red light district across the tracks?
Not completely true Kirth. The dead line was only for the commercial part of Dodge city. The rest of the city didn't have any gun laws."The rest of the city" being the red light district across the tracks?
Yep. The brothels, bars, etc..
[Also, Kirth, I'd like a response re: my statement above on solitary confinement replacing the death penalty. Still no go on solitary, even if it keeps someone alive should they be wrongly imprisoned?I answered that one quite some time ago, when bugleyman asked almost the same thing:
Part of my issue with prisons is the fact that they're a large industry. I firmy believe that possession laws were tightened, and sentences lengthened, during the "war on drugs" in order to maintain and expand what is in essence a major sector of the economy. I believe that we're seeing the same thing right now, with respect to the massive expansion of definitions for "piracy" (do you have a song from Kazaa on your computer?) and "sex offender" (potentially, a guy who pees in his own backyard, if a neighbor sees him) and "child pornography" (picture of your own kid in the bathtub = hard time). The U.S. has by far the most prisoners per capita of any nation on Earth. That bothers me.
Mandatory life sentences without parole would only encourage further expansion of that industry -- every conviction for a major crime would feed the machine for potentially 60 years, instead of 5 or 10 or 20.
If this were not the case, I'd agree with it 100%. Alternatively, if we were able to actually rehabilitate prisoners, I'd be in favor of sentences vs. executions. As it is, it seems like we've painted ourselves into a corner.
Ah, thank you Kirth. I was hoping that life in solitary might be a good alternative to simply executing someone. I'm sorry we're at odds on this, I thought it might work. Thoughts on the militia thing when it comes to guns?
Thoughts on the militia thing when it comes to guns?
Again, I think it is a bad idea to have one's rights based on a 3rd party's involvement. To make an analogy, it is like saying you can have the freedom of speech, but only if you can get a newspaper/periodical or tv/cable station to put it on/print it.
Thoughts on the militia thing when it comes to guns?Again, I think it is a bad idea to have one's rights based on a 3rd party's involvement. To make an analogy, it is like saying you can have the freedom of speech, but only if you can get a newspaper/periodical or tv/cable station to put it on/print it.
Well, this would be more of a gentleman's agreement, if you will- upon purchase of the gun, you are becoming a member of the local militia, and you agree to abide by its by-laws. As a member, however, you can vote on issues and topics related to the militia, so you aren't completely without power in this third party organization. You can be kicked out of the organization for violating its laws(presumably violent crime is one of these things, as are a handful of other crimes), and thereby lose your right to bear arms.
Frontier Violence: Another lookThat article compares the murder rates of late 19th century Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell to cities with population densities in the multiple thousands per-square-mile range.
>:|
And all three of the links are referencing the same book by W. Eugene Hollon.
I tend to believe that population density is a contributing factor to crime and violence.
Hollon's book is also some what dated.
I am mainly trying to point out that the wild west isn't what we see in the movies.
All of the Old West towns cited had draconian gun control, compared with that of the current day. Dodge City's "Dead Line" was so-named because, if you crossed the line into town wearing a gun, the local law enforcement could make you dead.
Much of the old west wasn't as free as many might think I'll concede.
Well, this would be more of a gentleman's agreement, if you will- upon purchase of the gun, you are becoming a member of the local militia, and you agree to abide by its by-laws. As a member, however, you can vote on issues and topics related to the militia, so you aren't completely without power in this third party organization. You can be kicked out of the organization for violating its laws(presumably violent crime is one of these things, as are a handful of other crimes), and thereby lose your right to bear arms.Thoughts on the militia thing when it comes to guns?Again, I think it is a bad idea to have one's rights based on a 3rd party's involvement. To make an analogy, it is like saying you can have the freedom of speech, but only if you can get a newspaper/periodical or tv/cable station to put it on/print it.
Militia Quotations
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.
James Madison
Just able barely to mount a horse and ride about a little in the spring of 1866, my life was threatened daily, and I was forced to go heavily armed. The whole country was then full of militia, robbing, plundering and killing.
Jesse James
By the last returns to the Department of War the militia force of the several States may be estimated at 800,000 men - infantry, artillery, and cavalry.
James Monroe
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
George Mason
What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
Elbridge Gerry
All of the Old West towns cited had draconian gun control, compared with that of the current day. Dodge City's "Dead Line" was so-named because, if you crossed the line into town wearing a gun, the local law enforcement could make you dead.Like I said for any given area, the "Wild West" period lasted a maximum of four years on average before two things happened. The town lost it's economic base and became a ghost town, or a strong police force imposed order and put strict controls on the bearing of firearms in town.
Do you include mining towns in this assertion?
How widespread do you assert the pattern to be?
Those are some great quotes, Bitter, but you do think it would work? Would you be eager to join such an organization, or view it as a bother/unnecessary? Would it be something you could tolerate, at least?