In response to Greg L's horrible cycling death in WNY thread

[Honey]

anyone want to start a country where people have to pass a common decency test to enter. I know this would be very difficult but in all seriousness I think if a big enough group of people got together it could be possible. Any legal people/ people with any related *experience* have any thoughts about it?

just curious as I can't get a work permit to move to New Zealand so this seems like a solid plan b.

[Earl Gray]

No!

[boxerboxer]

Bahahahahaha, you haven't met very many people, have you ;) Kidding aside, it would be pretty awesome to start a new community with no a-holes if it would actually work. Best of luck to you.

[MattTuck]

Any legal people/ people with any related *experience* have any thoughts about it?



So, do you want decent people or don't you? :rolleyes: And who would you elect to run things? It seems politicians would be in short supply in this utopia of decent people.

Our laws and policies as a government reflect our values (I am talking about the U.S. here). There are [admittedly inefficient and corrupt] pathways to lobby our governments to update and change those policies.

The big advance in the rise of democracies was the Rule of Law instead of the Rule of Man. If we are at the whim of what some 'ruler' deems decent (even if many of us are in agreement with that definition), we are on the path to a dictatorship. I'd argue that we're better off trying to update and codify our belief system and values within the system we have than to try to create a brand new one.

[slidey]

With you on this...incorporate an EQ and an IQ test with moderately high cut-off's as questions on the visa interview. If this fails, then make the same Q's the test for the drivers' exam and if people fail, they get a free bus pass.

Yup, I'm totally intolerant of stupidity.

anyone want to start a country where people have to pass a common decency test to enter. I know this would be very difficult but in all seriousness I think if a big enough group of people got together it could be possible. Any legal people/ people with any related *experience* have any thoughts about it?

just curious as I can't get a work permit to move to New Zealand so this seems like a solid plan b.

[Aaron O]

Next problem - what do you do with the decent people's children when they turn 14 and run amok for 5-10 years :no:

I do my best to ignore the imbeciles as much as possible and isolate myself with the few I can tolerate and who can tolerate me.

[skijoring]

Galt's Gulch, Sealand, Colorado Springs. etc.

[slidey]

TV broadcast should only include sports, science, cartoons, and BBC! This is what I was brought up on, well not really, but this is what stuck to me. I still love Wile E Coyote :banana:

Next problem - what do you do with the decent people's children when they turn 14 and run amok for 5-10 years :no:

I do my best to ignore the imbeciles as much as possible and isolate myself with the few I can tolerate and who can tolerate me.

[MattTuck]

TV broadcast should only include sports, science, cartoons, and BBC! This is what I was brought up on, well not really, but this is what stuck to me. I still love Wile E Coyote :banana:

No laugh tracks allowed for TV shows. People at home need to decide if something is funny on their own, and can make up their own mind whether to laugh or not.

[KidWok]

You're talking an "Animal Farm" scenario...Power can corrupt even the most decent.

It's not pessimistic to say that it will never be as good as you hope. We evolved as a tribalistic species with tendencies to destroy others. In the grand scheme of evolution, there's nothing actually "wrong" with that. When a male lion takes over a pride, it kills all the cubs. Turning away from the horrors that we are collectively capable of only serves to help us forget, so that we can do it again at another time.

The reality of the situation is that intolerance and exclusion is counter to the decency that you seek. Yes...lots of horrible people in this world, but IMHO the best we can do is be decent to the best of our abilities (nobody's perfect) and try to inspire the people around us to do the same.

My dos centavos.

Tai

[BobbyJones]

I remember reading an article in National Geographic (?) years ago about a small town in Nevada (?) made up of old timers, bikers, artists- basically a VERY diverse community of citizens.

Everyone seemed to get along due to the mutual respect fostered by the right to openly carry firearms- which most people did.

Makes you wonder a bit.

[Kontact]

This is all starting to sound like a Heinlein novel.

Moral codes are not the same as good judgement.
Intelligent people can pass empathy tests that they don't feel.
Successful people don't necessarily have successful children.

[laupsi]

I remember reading an article in National Geographic (?) years ago about a small town in Nevada (?) made up of old timers, bikers, artists- basically a VERY diverse community of citizens.

Everyone seemed to get along due to the mutual respect fostered by the right to openly carry firearms- which most people did.

Makes you wonder a bit.

gotta have your weapons :confused:

[William]

I remember reading an article in National Geographic (?) years ago about a small town in Nevada (?) made up of old timers, bikers, artists- basically a VERY diverse community of citizens.

Everyone seemed to get along due to the mutual respect fostered by the right to openly carry firearms- which most people did.

Makes you wonder a bit.


True, even the stupidest people tend understand reciprocal force. Usually keeps things honest....unless they are off their rocker.




William

[PQJ]

I remember reading an article in National Geographic (?) years ago about a small town in Nevada (?) made up of old timers, bikers, artists- basically a VERY diverse community of citizens.

Everyone seemed to get along due to the mutual respect fostered by the right to openly carry firearms- which most people did.

Makes you wonder a bit.

Must've been a long long long time ago. In today's America this sounds like a guaranteed disaster.

[rugbysecondrow]

Must've been a long long long time ago. In today's America this sounds like a guaranteed disaster.

Without the possibility of violence or physical response there would be less civility. What keeps the assholes of society in check? The arse beating that is waiting for them if they act up to the wrong fella.

[alancw3]

i am using all of my willpower to not respond to this thread. at this point in my life i question whether our current form of "democracy" with all the lobbiests and superpacs is really to our best interest. imho current day politicians are only interested in one thing porporting their best interest and will say anything to get reelected.. enough said.

[PQJ]

Without the possibility of violence or physical response there would be less civility. What keeps the assholes of society in check? The arse beating that is waiting for them if they act up to the wrong fella.

Not really. More like the rule of law. Violence is (almost) never the answer. Its a shame you see it as such The retaliatory possibility of it certainly didn't dissuade Holmes, loughner et al and etc.

Remember that your kids could be the unintended (or intended) victims of all those bullets zinging around in the competition to see who has the bigger peni...er...piece.

[giverdada]

love it.

i've been wondering much about this lately, and wondering too, about the firearms debate. i grew up in the states for a bit and then in canada and then back and forth, and the firearms thing is interesting. especially when the ubiquity of firearms is equated with increased civility.

someone told me the other day about how growing up in brooklyn the weapon was fists. if you didn't do right, you got the crap beat out of you. then it became guns, and suddenly, everyone was dying and no one was around long enough to learn to do right. interesting waves, really, and it makes the evolutionary process a curious one.

i've been wondering about erosion of all kinds of things for the past while, mostly in education, as things devolve into teaching to standardized tests, excessive accommodations that allow for anyone to 'succeed', and a general lack of authenticity. one of my buddies proposed going back to the 'old way': letting the cream rise to the top. the olympics are on now. i don't think anyone there was given accommodation or a medal based on his/her international student fees... what would happen if we earned stuff, but, due to social mobility and an actual valuation of things that were worthwhile, we could really, truly succeed? maybe we'd be decent people.

[slidey]

There is no one size, fits all kind of a solution here...and sure, I too feel like plowing some of these halfwits with a tractor...but I'm more or less convinced that violence isn't the answer.

Seeing the guilty party suffer is the key, violence only makes achieving this goal instantaneous. There are other ways of achieving the same goal though. Unfortunately these methods aren't always "on target" thanks to society's acceptance of stupidity as a valid excuse(s) or the numerous loopholes we've come up with to enable two professions (lawyers, politicians), etc. There exists a serpentine path to make the guilty party pay, it only needs smoothening out with an iron hand.

[Germany_chris]

i am using all of my willpower to not respond to this thread. at this point in my life i question whether our current form of "democracy" with all the lobbiests and superpacs is really to our best interest. imho current day politicians are only interested in one thing porporting their best interest and will say anything to get reelected.. enough said.

There is no democracy in our republic...

No I don't want a country where everybody is sweet and nice..I like a$$holes I am one. There are times that callousness and unfeeling coldness are appropriate.

[rugbysecondrow]

Not really. More like the rule of law. Violence is (almost) never the answer. Its a shame you see it as such The retaliatory possibility of it certainly didn't dissuade Holmes, loughner et al and etc.

Remember that your kids could be the unintended (or intended) victims of all those bullets zinging around in the competition to see who has the bigger peni...er...piece.

First, I never said violence was the answer, you are misunderstanding what I wrote, but violence or possibility for it is real and present. There is a reason people will flick you off from their car but will remain silent as a Prius in the grocery line. There is a reason people will cuss on the phone at the store manager when in person not a peep was uttered. They are cowards. Period. You can be a dick to anybody you want at pretty much any time, rule of law has nothing to do with that. Rule of law has little to do with civility and manners, it is a reliance on common decency and the fear of retribution which maintains civility.

Your Holmes example makes no sense in our context, a point you want to make looking for context it seems. We are discussing interpersonal relations, civility, not a murderous rampaging attack to unsuspecting movie goers.

[Germany_chris]

First, I never said violence was the answer, you are misunderstanding what I wrote, but violence or possibility for it is real and present. There is a reason people will flick you off from their car but will remain silent as a Prius in the grocery line. There is a reason people will cuss on the phone at the store manager when in person not a peep was uttered. They are cowards. Period. It is not a shame, it is not rule of law. You can be a dick to anybody you want at pretty much any time, rule of law has nothing to do with that. Rule of law, c'mon. Rule of law has little to do with civility and manners, it is a reliance on common decency and the fear of retribution.

Your Holmes example makes no sense in our context, a point you want to make looking for context it seems. We are discussing interpersonal relations, civility, not a murderous rampaging attack to unsuspecting movie goers.

I do believe this is the first post you've made that didn't make me ill..:)

[Aaron O]

Not really. More like the rule of law. Violence is (almost) never the answer. Its a shame you see it as such The retaliatory possibility of it certainly didn't dissuade Holmes, loughner et al and etc.

Remember that your kids could be the unintended (or intended) victims of all those bullets zinging around in the competition to see who has the bigger peni...er...piece.There is no rule of law without the threat of coerced compliance and punishment. We are tribal and are not that far removed from the jungles. When the thin veneer of civilization is removed, you have armed people on bridges. If someone wants something you have, and is determined to have it, it takes force to maintain it.

Yes - often times violence is the answer. It only takes one group willing to attack.

[rugbysecondrow]

I do believe this is the first post you've made that didn't make me ill..:)

I will try harder next time. :)

[slidey]

Welcome to Earth, where every country is just as you described...except perhaps from what I hear, Norway.

No I don't want a country where everybody is sweet and nice..I like a$$holes I am one.

[Germany_chris]

I will try harder next time. :)

Thank you, my world was much more pleasant when I didn't agree with a anything you said..

[Germany_chris]

Welcome to Earth, where every country is just as you described...except perhaps from what I hear, Norway.

I'm sure I could find a familiar face in Norway ;)

[rugbysecondrow]

Thank you, my world was much more pleasant when I didn't agree with a anything you said..

That must be how I felt when I agreed with TI Designs for the first time.

Like vomit in my mouth. :help:

[William]

Not really. More like the rule of law. Violence is (almost) never the answer. Its a shame you see it as such The retaliatory possibility of it certainly didn't dissuade Holmes, loughner et al and etc.

Remember that your kids could be the unintended (or intended) victims of all those bullets zinging around in the competition to see who has the bigger peni...er...piece.

With crazy people they will do what ever they think they need to do regardless of laws or consequences. The word that applies to what rugby is touching on is the Cold War usage of détente. Two parties that refrain from attacking each other because the damage they would likely receive in kind could be equal or greater than what they give. Criminals always look to have the advantage with minimal blow back at the time of their actions. Crazy people don't care.

Laws only work with honest people. The two people in question obviously have no care to go about driving with out licenses, driving drunk, and acting irresponsibly with death resulting. Then lash out at folks for pointing out the fact they were breaking the law. Sure, they can be put in jail for violating the law, but as usual it's too late for an innocent mother.






William

[MattTuck]

i've been wondering much about this lately, and wondering too, about the firearms debate. i grew up in the states for a bit and then in canada and then back and forth, and the firearms thing is interesting. especially when the ubiquity of firearms is equated with increased civility.


Let's be clear for a moment. The purpose of the second amendment was a check on government power. The US was founded on a belief that government power should be restricted and the fact that the right to bear arms is the 2nd of ten priorities is an indication of how skeptical the people at that time were to cede control to a government after just fighting a war against the English crown.

In reality, the 'right to bear arms' as it was intended would mean that the citizenry could have tanks and fighter jets, in case the government got too powerful and needed to be stopped -- so we could atleast be a credible threat to the government.

The government has eroded that right over the years until what we are left with today is a debate about gun control framed primarily by people's desire for safety and security from other citizens rather than their fear that the government is becoming (or has become too powerful).

This idea that guns were allowed because people had to hunt food, and that is no longer a concern for most people is a fallacious argument. Guns were allowed to protect us from our own government.

[Germany_chris]

Let's be clear for a moment. The purpose of the second amendment was a check on government power. The US was founded on a belief that government power should be restricted and the fact that the right to bear arms is the 2nd of ten priorities is an indication of how skeptical the people at that time were to cede control to a government after just fighting a war against the English crown.

In reality, the 'right to bear arms' as it was intended would mean that the citizenry could have tanks and fighter jets, in case the government got too powerful and needed to be stopped -- so we could atleast be a credible threat to the government.

The government has eroded that right over the years until what we are left with today is a debate about gun control framed primarily by people's desire for safety and security from other citizens rather than their fear that the government is becoming (or has become too powerful).

This idea that guns were allowed because people had to hunt food, and that is no longer a concern for most people is a fallacious argument. Guns were allowed to protect us from our own government.

Another person I'm not generally inclined to agree with I agree with..

We don't have our guns to shoot Bambie they are for the government.

[rugbysecondrow]

The government has eroded that right over the years until what we are left with today is a debate about gun control framed primarily by people's desire for safety and security from other citizens rather than their fear that the government is becoming (or has become too powerful).

This idea that guns were allowed because people had to hunt food, and that is no longer a concern for most people is a fallacious argument. Guns were allowed to protect us from our own government.

I think there is a legitimate case to be made that A) safety from other citizens is important. B) if there is an emergency, the government cannot act on your behalf or a defacto government/mob is acting and you must protect yourself from it. Think LA riots, in the 1990's. When there was a power outage in Maryland for 5 days, don't think folks didn't have there guns nearby incase they were taken advantage of by others or outsiders. Just because there aren't threats all the time or frequently doesn't mean we don't plan for them...like a generator. :)

[MattTuck]

Another person I'm not generally inclined to agree with I agree with..

We don't have our guns to shoot Bambie they are for the government.

Don't YOU work for the government!!?? I'm atleast glad you haven't become drunk with power ;) (and for the record, I don't think we disagree that much! just maybe on some business type stuff.)

PS. Thank you for serving!

[MattTuck]

I think there is a legitimate case to be made that A) safety from other citizens is important. B) if there is an emergency, the government cannot act on your behalf or a defacto government/mob is acting and you must protect yourself from it. Think LA riots, in the 1990's. When there was a power outage in Maryland for 5 days, don't think folks didn't have there guns nearby incase they were taken advantage of by others or outsiders. Just because there aren't threats all the time or frequently doesn't mean we don't plan for them...like a generator. :)

Totally agree, self defense/protection of one's life and property is a valid reason to own a gun and should also be protected. Was just trying to put the argument that guns are inherently bad/dangerous into perspective, and why the founding fathers thought it was a priority -- basically they believed that power, even legitimately obtained power through elections, corrupts and that the government should not be trusted. Yes, there were checks and balances between the branches of government to keep it from becoming too powerful. Freedom of speech and the press (1st Ammendment), bear arms (second), prevent quartering of soliders in your homes (3rd), prevent search and seizure of property (4th) and due process (5th) ALL are checks on government power from the public at large, not checks between branches of government.

[slidey]

Fitting link to the ideology mentioned below, basically bollocks: http://youtu.be/_ylXFzniTuM

Two parties that refrain from attacking each other because the damage they would likely receive in kind could be equal or greater than what they give.

[William]

There is no rule of law without the threat of coerced compliance and punishment. We are tribal and are not that far removed from the jungles. When the thin veneer of civilization is removed, you have armed people on bridges. If someone wants something you have, and is determined to have it, it takes force to maintain it.

Yes - often times violence is the answer. It only takes one group willing to attack.

I agree.

Not saying I agree with everything this guy says, but he brings up some good points touching on this very subject: ROL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPVSE5jg_LY&list=PL589A2871D81C1B9A&index=4&feature=plpp_video

This video touches on people who are the exact opposite if the two people in the article....the Sheepdogs of society. "Your actions could save lives. At the heart of what I have referred to as The Sheepdog is a selflessness that looks outwardly to the needs of others. They cannot abide watching their fellow humans beings suffer and die while they do nothing. They are compelled into action even when those actions could lead to their own deaths or injury."

Again, not saying I agree with everything he says but he brings up some good points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW8BZ7pRt28&feature=relmfu





William

[jet sanchez]

I lived in Auckland, New Zealand for a year and cycled every day---horrible drivers with zero respect for cyclists.

[William]

Fitting link to the ideology mentioned below, basically bollocks: http://youtu.be/_ylXFzniTuM

Not if you have Lord Flashheart on your side!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC3sURgYxng&feature=fvwrel





William

[slidey]

haha...true true! Gotta love Slackbladder...err, Blackadder!

Not if you have Lord Flashheart on your side!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC3sURgYxng&feature=fvwrel





William

[Germany_chris]

Don't YOU work for the government!!?? I'm atleast glad you haven't become drunk with power ;) (and for the record, I don't think we disagree that much! just maybe on some business type stuff.)

PS. Thank you for serving!

Yes I do..but I sorta separate myself from the others like religious folks. I'll defend my Army it's value and my soldiers to my last breath all else can go fly a kite, particularly politicians. My green suiters need some civilians watching out for them..

[Aaron O]

There's an old saying - every dog is four meals away from being a wolf. If you think humans are that different, all of our history says otherwise. The capacity for kindness and egalitarian civilization only exists when and where there is plenty. And we're all four meals away from savagery.

[Germany_chris]

I agree.

Not saying I agree with everything this guy says, but he brings up some good points touching on this very subject: ROL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPVSE5jg_LY&list=PL589A2871D81C1B9A&index=4&feature=plpp_video

This video touches on people who are the exact opposite if the two people in the article....the Sheepdogs of society. "Your actions could save lives. At the heart of what I have referred to as The Sheepdog is a selflessness that looks outwardly to the needs of others. They cannot abide watching their fellow humans beings suffer and die while they do nothing. They are compelled into action even when those actions could lead to their own deaths or injury."

Again, not saying I agree with everything he says but he brings up some good points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW8BZ7pRt28&feature=relmfu





William

Here is my concealed carry issue that I tried to raise in the CO shooting thread. If you sign up to carry you have by extension decided to be a defacto protector of society (the innocent). This protection does not derive it's courage and willingness from the gun it derives from the heart. Levelheadedness and decision making skills do not come through marksmanship nor the power of the gun but through training and experience. I fear few men, but most of the folks that conceal carry do concern me because when bad things happen (CO. Shooting) they don't seem able to react.

[fiamme red]

There's an old saying - every dog is four meals away from being a wolf. If you think humans are that different, all of our history says otherwise. The capacity for kindness and egalitarian civilization only exists when and where there is plenty. And we're all four meals away from savagery.As the Romans said: "Homo homini lupus est."

[PQJ]

There's an old saying - every dog is four meals away from being a wolf. If you think humans are that different, all of our history says otherwise. The capacity for kindness and egalitarian civilization only exists when and where there is plenty. And we're all four meals away from savagery.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not inclined to debate this on a message board, given all the issues and complexities. Suffice it to say that some nations (USA, in my opinion), and some races (caucasians of european descent, in my opinion), have a greater capacity for violence and savagery than others. And you need look no further than Nazi Germany and the Jewish experience during the holocaust to see human capacity for, on the one hand, intense savagery by those who had absolute power and "plenty" versus the kindness/civility/fundamental human decency of those who lived with nothing in the face of daily horror the likes of which most of us can't even conceive in our worst nightmares.

[slidey]

Hit the nail on the head...not all of us are trained for crisis response in a level-headed manner. Emotions cloud and almost always damage our impartial judgment of a situation, and crises target lives in it's immediate vicinity and emotions in it's nearest circles...ripple effect.

Here is my concealed carry issue that I tried to raise in the CO shooting thread. If you sign up to carry you have by extension decided to be a defacto protector of society (the innocent). This protection does not derive it's courage and willingness from the gun it derives from the heart. Levelheadedness and decision making skills do not come through marksmanship nor the power of the gun but through training and experience. I fear few men, but most of the folks that conceal carry do concern me because when bad things happen (CO. Shooting) they don't seem able to react.

[rugbysecondrow]

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not inclined to debate this on a message board, given all the issues and complexities. Suffice it to say that some nations (USA, in my opinion), and some races (caucasians of european descent, in my opinion), have a greater capacity for violence and savagery than others. And you need look no further than Nazi Germany and the Jewish experience during the holocaust to see human capacity for, on the one hand, intense savagery by those who had absolute power and "plenty" versus the kindness/civility/fundamental human decency of those who lived with nothing in the face of daily horror the likes of which most of us can't even conceive in our worst nightmares.

Hmmm, seems a little racist to me. I am sure if I said Africans as race ethnicity of people were prone to violence and savagery and cited Rwanda as an example, I think that might be misinterpreted as being a racist statement. Chinese Cultural Revolution...30 million dead? There are two just off the top of my head. Your cherry picked examples to make a bad point..

I think you ought to have stuck with your first sentence and ended your statement there.

[PQJ]

Hmmm, seems a little racist to me. I am sure if I said Africans as race ethnicity of people were prone to violence and savagery and cited Rwanda as an example, I think that might be misinterpreted as being a racist statement. Chinese Cultural Revolution...30 million dead? Your cherry pick examples to make your point.

I think you ought to have stuck with your first sentence and ended your statement there.

As a white person, who has lived in the US for nearly 20 years, and Africa for 20 years before that, I think I'm well entitled to give my opinion regarding America's and Americans' proclivity for violence, as well as the extent to which (white) Western Europeans basically destroyed the African sub-continent in the name of imperial grandeur. If it struck a nerve, perhaps you ought to consider why. You might also want to familiarize yourself with American, British, German, French, Spanish and Portuguese history. I know the aspersions I cast have a solid foundation in reality. And note that I didn't say that violence or savagery are the sole province of whites or Americans.

[Germany_chris]

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not inclined to debate this on a message board, given all the issues and complexities. Suffice it to say that some nations (USA, in my opinion), and some races (caucasians of european descent, in my opinion), have a greater capacity for violence and savagery than others. And you need look no further than Nazi Germany and the Jewish experience during the holocaust to see human capacity for, on the one hand, intense savagery by those who had absolute power and "plenty" versus the kindness/civility/fundamental human decency of those who lived with nothing in the face of daily horror the likes of which most of us can't even conceive in our worst nightmares.

Really are you serious??

Have you ever read about what the Japanese did to the Chinese and Roosevelt and Truman's utter lack of response "I don't care" that lead to Mao coming to power when some guns and moral support that would have lead to Chang Kai-schek as leader of China.

Lets go further back, who do you think collected and sold prisoners to slave traders? I'll give you a hint they weren't european. Hitler was what he was but at least he was honest. He didn't collect people like and sell them to the highest bidder, nor did he treat people like live training aids to be gored to death by multiple soldiers then discarded. Hitler was honest he despised jews, said it before hand and went about disposing of them. It's wrong in the deepest sense but honest.

Old uncle Joe by the way killed far more Russians than Adolf killed Jews yet adolf is the symbol of evil..:no:

[eddief]

"Obviously, the [second] amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be (looked at) ... it will have to be decided," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said on "FOX News Sunday."

[rugbysecondrow]

As a white person, who has lived in the US for nearly 20 years, and Africa for 20 years before that, I think I'm well entitled to give my opinion regarding America's and Americans' proclivity for violence, as well as the extent to which (white) Western Europeans basically destroyed the African sub-continent in the name of imperial grandeur. If it struck a nerve, perhaps you ought to consider why. You might also want to familiarize yourself with American, British, German, French, Spanish and Portuguese history. I know the aspersions I cast have a solid foundation in reality. And note that I didn't say that violence or savagery are the sole province of whites or Americans.

You don't need to blame me for your statement, there is nothing really for me to consider. I didn't participate in any of the events you cited, so nothing for me to ponder. Plus, I am swedish, so I didn't show up on your list. :)

I accept your opinion based on your experiences, but I think all humans have an equal capacity for violence and savagery. If we accept that one race has violent attribute A, are we able to now allocate other positive and negative attributes to races?

I don't think that is a road we ought to pedal down.

[Germany_chris]

As a white person, who has lived in the US for nearly 20 years, and Africa for 20 years before that, I think I'm well entitled to give my opinion regarding America's and Americans' proclivity for violence, as well as the extent to which (white) Western Europeans basically destroyed the African sub-continent in the name of imperial grandeur. If it struck a nerve, perhaps you ought to consider why. You might also want to familiarize yourself with American, British, German, French, Spanish and Portuguese history. I know the aspersions I cast have a solid foundation in reality. And note that I didn't say that violence or savagery are the sole province of whites or Americans.

You want to know what destroyed Africa? Religion, tobacco (at the behest of Kennedy) and mining.

[Aaron O]

Yes - those civilized, non-violent Africans. Have you heard of Nigeria, the Sudan, etc.? Who do you think caught those African slaves? For the most part it was other Africans. Human tendencies towards violence and tribalism cross racial lines...and as a Jew who has spent a considerable amount of time studying history - the only difference between our culture and others is that our culture's beliefs about blood purity have insured that we're small and unable to oppress others. Humans are humans - and we're all 4 meals away from attacking the other village. The least violent societies...the most civilized...will be the ones with content people, the ones with plenty.

Shakespeare wrote a play about this.

[gdw]

"As a white person, who has lived in the US for nearly 20 years, and Africa for 20 years before that, I think I'm well entitled to give my opinion regarding America's and Americans' proclivity for violence, as well as the extent to which (white) Western Europeans basically destroyed the African sub-continent in the name of imperial grandeur. If it struck a nerve, perhaps you ought to consider why. You might also want to familiarize yourself with American, British, German, French, Spanish and Portuguese history. I know the aspersions I cast have a solid foundation in reality. And note that I didn't say that violence or savagery are the sole province of whites or Americans"

Stop relying on Howard Zinn, Ward Churchill, etc for your US and world history. Modern history is rife with atrocities committed by noncaucasions...Cambodia, Rwanda, the Sudan, the Congo, Liberia, China, Japan..... Go back further and read about Shaka's reign. Study the slave trade... who captured and sold their brothers to the Europeans? We all know that caucasions are far from blameless but your opinion is biased and very flawed.

Edit - You guys guys are faster on the keyboard than I.

[zap]

but I think all humans have an equal capacity for violence and savagery.

This.

[Aaron O]

"As a white person, who has lived in the US for nearly 20 years, and Africa for 20 years before that, I think I'm well entitled to give my opinion regarding America's and Americans' proclivity for violence, as well as the extent to which (white) Western Europeans basically destroyed the African sub-continent in the name of imperial grandeur. If it struck a nerve, perhaps you ought to consider why. You might also want to familiarize yourself with American, British, German, French, Spanish and Portuguese history. I know the aspersions I cast have a solid foundation in reality. And note that I didn't say that violence or savagery are the sole province of whites or Americans"

Stop relying on Howard Zinn, Ward Churchill, etc for your US and world history. Modern history is rife with atrocities committed by noncaucasions...Cambodia, Rwanda, the Sudan, the Congo, Liberia, China, Japan..... Go back further and read about Shaka's reign. Study the slave trade... who captured and sold their brothers to the Europeans? We all know that caucasions are far from blameless but your opinion is biased and very flawed.
It's idealistic tripe based in this romanticized concept of the noble savage. Native Americans weren't living peacefully in idyllic utopias. They hunted one another quite savagely.

[majorpat]

I thought this thread was about two idiots who killed a cyclist because they made a choice to drive foolishly?

[slidey]

Alright, please let not filthy language like religion come into this forum.

[Germany_chris]

"Obviously, the [second] amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be (looked at) ... it will have to be decided," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said on "FOX News Sunday."

so if I can push it does that count? I have picked up the hitch and pushed a 155MM howitzer around. Ive carried 120mm mortar tubes around, and carried Javelin AT missile/rockets around. How about "Ma Duce" the 50 caliber machine gun I've humped that f**ker. What in your opinion does bear arms mean?

[rugbysecondrow]

I thought this thread was about two idiots who killed a cyclist because they made a choice to drive foolishly?

Here is the right one:
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=113486&page=3

[PQJ]

A lot of touchy white Americans in these parts, it seems. :eek:

[Germany_chris]

"As a white person, who has lived in the US for nearly 20 years, and Africa for 20 years before that, I think I'm well entitled to give my opinion regarding America's and Americans' proclivity for violence, as well as the extent to which (white) Western Europeans basically destroyed the African sub-continent in the name of imperial grandeur. If it struck a nerve, perhaps you ought to consider why. You might also want to familiarize yourself with American, British, German, French, Spanish and Portuguese history. I know the aspersions I cast have a solid foundation in reality. And note that I didn't say that violence or savagery are the sole province of whites or Americans"

Stop relying on Howard Zinn, Ward Churchill, etc for your US and world history. Modern history is rife with atrocities committed by noncaucasions...Cambodia, Rwanda, the Sudan, the Congo, Liberia, China, Japan..... Go back further and read about Shaka's reign. Study the slave trade... who captured and sold their brothers to the Europeans? We all know that caucasions are far from blameless but your opinion is biased and very flawed.

Edit - You guys guys are faster on the keyboard than I.

really what did Mr. Zinn tell you other than the truth you didn't want to hear?

[Aaron O]

A lot of touchy white Americans in these parts, it seems. :eek:

And a silly romantic who apparently hasn't read much history.

Are you familiar with what often happens to albinos in Africa?

[rugbysecondrow]

A lot of touchy white Americans in these parts, it seems. :eek:

I see a pattern, you make a statement, people respond to it, then you blame the responser for not "getting it" or not being introspective enough....then you make another statement, rinse and repeat. If you want a conversation, then go for it, if all you want to do is troll and lobb grenades, then point...well that is just annoying.

[Germany_chris]

And a silly romantic who apparently hasn't read much history.

Are you familiar with what often happens to albinos in Africa?

yuppers...


thread lock in: 3, 2, 1

[Louis]

Lets go further back, who do you think collected and sold prisoners to slave traders? I'll give you a hint they weren't european. Hitler was what he was but at least he was honest. He didn't collect people like and sell them to the highest bidder, nor did he treat people like live training aids to be gored to death by multiple soldiers then discarded. Hitler was honest he despised jews, said it before hand and went about disposing of them. It's wrong in the deepest sense but honest.

Um, "honest?" This is interesting.

It's not as if the extermination camps and ovens were in the middle of Berlin for all to see. (And I believe he did collect people.)

I'm not sure how this thread ended up here, but here we are.

[PQJ]

Yes - those civilized, non-violent Africans. Have you heard of Nigeria, the Sudan, etc.? Who do you think caught those African slaves? For the most part it was other Africans. Human tendencies towards violence and tribalism cross racial lines...and as a Jew who has spent a considerable amount of time studying history - the only difference between our culture and others is that our culture's beliefs about blood purity have insured that we're small and unable to oppress others. Humans are humans - and we're all 4 meals away from attacking the other village. The least violent societies...the most civilized...will be the ones with content people, the ones with plenty.

Shakespeare wrote a play about this.

Two things:
1. Money = power.
2. History is replete with instances of minorities oppressing majorities.

[William]

Here is my concealed carry issue that I tried to raise in the CO shooting thread. If you sign up to carry you have by extension decided to be a defacto protector of society (the innocent). This protection does not derive it's courage and willingness from the gun it derives from the heart. Levelheadedness and decision making skills do not come through marksmanship nor the power of the gun but through training and experience. I fear few men, but most of the folks that conceal carry do concern me because when bad things happen (CO. Shooting) they don't seem able to react.

Agreed. There are no certainties in life. If you choose to take on the responsibility to be a CCP holder then you need to train often and as realistically as possible to better your chances of doing the right thing when and if the stuff hits the fan. It's no guarantee that you'll be able to act accordingly, but your chances are generally better than someone who doesn't train at all.

If (using the example of the CO. shooting that you mentioned) a CCP holder has his/her sidearm but is unable to act then its no different than being another unarmed person. If they do react accordingly then they have the ability to possibly stop the perp or minimize damage.






William

[gdw]

"A lot of touchy white Americans in these parts, it seems. "

Touchy educated Americans who earned their degrees in history before the PC revisionists received tenure.:banana:

[Germany_chris]

I see a pattern, you make a statement, people respond to it, then you blame the responser for not "getting it" or not being introspective enough....then you make another statement, rinse and repeat. If you want a conversation, then go for it, if all you want to do is troll and lobb grenades, then point...well that is just annoying.

I might just have to like you!!! I've had a few beers (3L) but your alright for a christian, republican.

[zap]

A lot of touchy white Americans in these parts, it seems. :eek:

'nuff said.

[PQJ]

I see a pattern, you make a statement, people respond to it, then you blame the responser for not "getting it" or not being introspective enough....then you make another statement, rinse and repeat. If you want a conversation, then go for it, if all you want to do is troll and lobb grenades, then point...well that is just annoying.

No, Paul, I made a statement and by negative implication people impute into it things that were unsaid. I'm not so insecure as to feel the need to respond to these sorts of things. But as I said in my initial post (at least I think it was my initial post), I'm not inclined to have this kind of conversation with strangers on an internet message board.

In my mind, it's telling that (mostly) American (mostly) upper middle class (mostly) whites would respond with such indignation to the suggestion that whites and Americans are prone to violence.

Have a nice, nonviolent day.

[Aaron O]

Two things:
1. Money = power.
2. History is replete with instances of minorities oppressing majorities.

1. Money is one, relatively modern, means of establishing power. There are others and it comes down to resources. Money has no intrinsic worth without a Government behind it guarantying that the piece of paper has worth and that Government will use force to protect it.

2. History is replete with a lot of folks oppressing others. Tell an Israeli victim of a terrorist trained in Tunisia about the benevolence and superiority of Africa. We're all in the muck, and as for your comments about the US using force and coercion in its efforts to establish and protect its empire, we've been a lot more civilized about it than any of the prior empires...and many other nations have profited from that.

Kurt Vonnegut made a terrific comment in Cat's Cradle...two idealists wash up on the shore of a poor island where a wealthy dictator had been in charge. They take over and decide to install a benevolent socialist government. They redistribute all of the wealth of the island. Everyone gets $1.53 (don't remember exact number).

There is no meaningful, civilized liberalism without resources. Do you think it matters what the name of the government in a poor country is? Do you think it matters if it's a democracy, dictatorship, etc.? If there are no resources, and only one industry, whoever manages that industry runs the country. Period.

[Germany_chris]

Agreed. There are no certainties in life. If you choose to take on the responsibility to be a CCP holder then you need to train often and as realistically as possible to better your chances of doing the right thing when and if the stuff hits the fan. It's no guarantee that you'll be able to act accordingly, but your chances are generally better than someone who doesn't train at all.

If (using the example of the CO. shooting that you mentioned) a CCP holder has his/her sidearm but is unable to act then its no different than being another unarmed person. If they do react accordingly then they have the ability to possibly stop the perp or minimize damage.




William

The fool who tried to "kill" people not only picked the wrong weapon but said wrong weapon jammed twice. If it were my wife and 7yo. daughter dumb f**k with and AR15 and gas mask would not be sitting in jail right now his mom would be crying over his grave. I'm quite simple minded you want to hurt my innocent little girl then you or I will not survive the encounter. In this case the DF wore a gas mask and popped smoke that is just asking to be hurt.

[slidey]

I don't get it...are you then suggesting that the present viewpoint that the world (not the US, the whole damned world) has of the US as a belligerent nation which enters wars under flimsy circumstances (WMDs, Al-Qaeda, etc) is misplaced? Or are you just comparing across aeons? If it's the latter, it is true...but bodes little relevance to the future.

We're all in the muck, and as for your comments about the US using force and coercion in its efforts to establish and protect its empire, we've been a lot more civilized about it than any of the prior empires...and many other nations have profited from that.

[Kontact]

Another person I'm not generally inclined to agree with I agree with..

We don't have our guns to shoot Bambie they are for the government.

The 2nd is to protect the citizen from tyranny, and that comes in more forms than just the government. Aurora experienced a kind of tyranny, recently.

We don't really need to guess what the 2nd was about - many of the founding fathers had plenty to say about it that was pretty darn clear in their personal writings. And hunting was the least of it.

[PQJ]

We're all in the muck, and as for your comments about the US using force and coercion in its efforts to establish and protect its empire, we've been a lot more sophisticated about it than any of the prior empires...and many other nations have profited from that.


Fixed.

[Aaron O]

I don't get it...are you then suggesting that the present viewpoint that the world (not the US, the whole damned world) has of the US as a belligerent nation which enters wars under flimsy circumstances (WMDs, Al-Qaeda, etc) is misplaced? Or are you just comparing across aeons? If it's the latter, it is true...but bodes little relevance to the future.

I am suggesting both actually; we're not perfect and we've certainly made errors. I consider Iraq one of them, Vietnam is another. A lot of foreign resentment to the US is simply jealousy...do you think China would behave more morally than we would as the preeminent empire? Some of it is scapegoating by foreign Governments and amounts to a bread and circus act - see Iran. We also sell weapons to other Governments and when those Governments use those weapons on their people, those people might be mad at the made in the US stickers. A lot of times we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we don't intervene in Syria, we're unsympathetic butchers. If we do intervene, we're violent war mongers. Lots of people can complain, few offer solutions.

Some resentment towards the US is quite legitimate. We promised Turkey aid and investment after the first gulf war that we never delivered on. They're ticked - and that anger led to Turkey becoming more conservative, less supportive of Israel and less willing to bail us out of our errors in Iraq. It's also, indirectly, led to support for the arab spring uprisings - which I consider a negative for human rights and the US from any rational perspective.

The bottom line is that we usually aren't why those countries are poor and/or developing and our promotion of free trade has resulted in economic stimulation which will, long term, benefit those countries we exploit for labor and resources. You don't instantly become a prosperous, western country that respects human rights. It takes a long evolution, and ours was easier than most because we truly are a nation of plenty with no real local rivals. We also did a lot of things more intelligently than some others did...our forefathers are the difference between us and countries in south america. They took a more long term approach with a greater focus on infrastructure.

I am a Jew descended from people who would be dead without the US. The only reason my family exists is because the US allowed us to come here from Poland, where we'd been hunted for sport for centuries. The US isn't perfect, but neither is anyone else. We're humans. I know we've done better here and been afforded greater tolerance here, than we have been anywhere else. Yes - I am grateful for that.

If you really want to cut down to brass tacks, the reason Africa has lagged behind Asia and South America in terms of development, it's population growth. China's resurgence is directly related to population control. So is Brazil's. Obviously the other huge reason is that former colonial powers drew large borders on maps in Africa that had little to do with the people who actually lived there. That's led to governmental instability and not many nations have solved it. It goes back to all people being savage when hungry ;)

[gdw]

''really what did Mr. Zinn tell you other than the truth you didn't want to hear? "

Mr Zinn doesn't tell the truth. He distorts the facts to fit his agenda. In his own words....


“Objectivity is impossible,” Zinn once remarked, “and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.”


Spend some time over at HNN.com. Mr Zinn has his backers and detractors. You can choose what side of the fence you sit on but bear in mind that his "History" was voted the second, it barely missed first place, most biased work in recent years on an academic website which is quite liberal.

[Germany_chris]

The 2nd is to protect the citizen from tyranny, and that comes in more forms than just the government. Aurora experienced a kind of tyranny, recently.

We don't really need to guess what the 2nd was about - many of the founding fathers had plenty to say about it that was pretty darn clear in their personal writings. And hunting was the least of it.

no what CO taught us was that the wimps that need a gun to defend themselves are in fact wimps and not deserving of respect. The "men" who put themselves on top of their girlfriends so they could survive are in fact selfish boys. Our fellow man (society) are more important than any one of us. instead of protecting your GF how about protecting all the people in the theater. Silly people who throw smoke in the dark and add a gas mask to the confusion are victims standing. The fact that no one turned that fool into a victim is beyond me.

I take my 7yo daughter to the matinee every Sunday, we buy popcorn and soda (which my wife disapproves of and leads to the fun) and watch a movie together. If an idiot tried shooting in my theater he wouldn't make it through the first 30 round magazine. Guns are nothing to fear, fools with guns are less to fear popping smoke in a dark theater proves you to be a fool. pro-masks take away your peripheral vision and SPORTS takes enough time that the military teaches you to fall if your gun jams..

[Germany_chris]

''really what did Mr. Zinn tell you other than the truth you didn't want to hear? "

Mr Zinn doesn't tell the truth. He distorts the facts to fit his agenda. In his own words....


“Objectivity is impossible,” Zinn once remarked, “and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.”


Spend some time over at HNN.com. Mr Zinn has his backers and detractors. You can choose what side of the fence you sit on but bear in mind that his "History" was voted the second, it barely missed first place, most biased work in recent years on an academic website which is quite liberal.

Right so he told you the truth you didn't want....

P.S. I'm no liberal...

[William]

Let's be clear for a moment. The purpose of the second amendment was a check on government power. The US was founded on a belief that government power should be restricted and the fact that the right to bear arms is the 2nd of ten priorities is an indication of how skeptical the people at that time were to cede control to a government after just fighting a war against the English crown.

In reality, the 'right to bear arms' as it was intended would mean that the citizenry could have tanks and fighter jets, in case the government got too powerful and needed to be stopped -- so we could atleast be a credible threat to the government.

The government has eroded that right over the years until what we are left with today is a debate about gun control framed primarily by people's desire for safety and security from other citizens rather than their fear that the government is becoming (or has become too powerful).

This idea that guns were allowed because people had to hunt food, and that is no longer a concern for most people is a fallacious argument. Guns were allowed to protect us from our own government.

Agreed, and....As William remembers it:

It wasn't until after the war of 1812 that the young U.S. Government decide that it needed a standing Army and Navy for protection from outside powers. Before that Madison and the founding fathers felt that a standing Army run by a government was too dangerous and that militias made of everyday men was safer to their Independence. The right to bear arms was to bear them against the tyranny of government if needed. Also for what they termed the "God given right" for self protection. After the War of 1812 when the decision was made to form a standing Army and Navy they didn't repeal the right to bear arms. Why? For the same previous reason, the "God given right of self protection" and to use against the possible tyranny of Government if needed.



William

[William]

no what CO taught us was that the wimps that need a gun to defend themselves are in fact wimps and not deserving of respect. The "men" who put themselves on top of their girlfriends so they could survive are in fact selfish boys. Our fellow man (society) are more important than any one of us. instead of protecting your GF how about protecting all the people in the theater. Silly people who throw smoke in the dark and add a gas mask to the confusion are victims standing. The fact that no one turned that fool into a victim is beyond me.

I take my 7yo daughter to the matinee every Sunday, we buy popcorn and soda (which my wife disapproves of and leads to the fun) and watch a movie together. If an idiot tried shooting in my theater he wouldn't make it through the first 30 round magazine. Guns are nothing to fear, fools with guns are less to fear popping smoke in a dark theater proves you to be a fool. pro-masks take away your peripheral vision and SPORTS takes enough time that the military teaches you to fall if your gun jams..

In essence I agree with you. In visualizing that scenario I would do everything in my power to take that MF out. I don't carry a firearm but I do have EDC that I would bring to bear in doing so. That being said I wasn't there so I will not speculate any more than that.



William

[gdw]

Actually the truths he pushes aren't new, anyone who studies US History is aware of the ugly chapters in our nation's past. The truth I took from the book was that it's quite easy to manipulate and indoctrinate impressionable freshmen.

“I wanted my writing of history and my teaching of history to be a part of social struggle,” Zinn remarks in an interview conducted long after the release of A People’s History of the United States. “I wanted to be a part of history and not just a recorder and teacher of history. So that kind of attitude towards history, history itself as a political act, has always informed my writing and my teaching.”

[Aaron O]

Actually the truths he pushes aren't new, anyone who studies US History is aware of the ugly chapters in our nation's past. The truth I took from the book was that it's quite easy to manipulate and indoctrinate impressionable freshmen.

“I wanted my writing of history and my teaching of history to be a part of social struggle,” Zinn remarks in an interview conducted long after the release of A People’s History of the United States. “I wanted to be a part of history and not just a recorder and teacher of history. So that kind of attitude towards history, history itself as a political act, has always informed my writing and my teaching.”

The only truths I found in education were penned by MAD and Kierkegaard.

Kierkegaard - Nothing worth teaching can be taught.
MAD - Think for yourself stupid. Trust no one's BS, least of all your own.

[Germany_chris]

In essence I agree with you. In visualizing that scenario I would do everything in my power to take that MF out. I don't carry a firearm but I do have EDC that I would bring to bear in doing so. That being said I wasn't there so I will not speculate any more than that.



William

He's a fool that cannot see, he brought a .223 where the caliber was the deciding factor between life and death. His choices were so comical. If your goal is to kill folks through steel framed and backed chairs you don't bring a .223 especially at theater distance. If you bring a small gun and pop smoke in a situation like this you cannot expect to live through the endeavor. if your goal was actually to kill people you'd have picked a pistol round with penetration power but not distance not only will this be more effective at killing but it will be easier to suppress bring out more victims. This fools idea was to die a martyr not actually kill people.

[Aaron O]

The guy had semi-automatic weapons that he was firing into an unsuspecting crowd. No one had any idea what happened. There was smoke. Panic. It's a packed theater...you can't even really move. How do you know how many there are? Where they are? It's dark. They don't know what caliber the rifle is.

I would have ran or laid down on my wife too.

[Germany_chris]

The guy had semi-automatic weapons that he was firing into an unsuspecting crowd. No one had any idea what happened. There was smoke. Panic. It's a packed theater...you can't even really move. How do you know how many there are? Where they are? It's dark. They don't know what caliber the rifle is.

I would have ran or laid down on my wife too.

And I would have removed the aggressor.

[slidey]

Well, in essence I don't like how we divide ourselves up based on geographical borders. Just because we dress differently, speak different languages, prefer different foods, doesn't mean we're different...we all still need clothes, means of communication, food, etc. What I'm getting at it is give the UN more teeth and do away with all this nonsense of one country standing up to be another one's saviour, etc. It's a noble act, but that's how lines are drawn and people are always there to further make faint lines deeper. My ideal scenario would be for every country to have a cap on the armed forces spending, normalized to a function of their country's population and area and commit to dispatch half of the forces at the beck and call of the UN. UN should ideally represent the stake of every nation proportionately and not just become a contest for countries trying to enter into the Security Council, etc. All these nonsensical groups we come up with and start naming mean very little...the bottom line is that we're all humans living on earth and the only major issue concerning all of us right now is Global Warming. Less greed, more unity.

Alas, this will never happen.

I am suggesting both actually; we're not perfect and we've certainly made errors. I consider Iraq one of them, Vietnam is another. A lot of foreign resentment to the US is simply jealousy...do you think China would behave more morally than we would as the preeminent empire? Some of it is scapegoating by foreign Governments and amounts to a bread and circus act - see Iran. We also sell weapons to other Governments and when those Governments use those weapons on their people, those people might be mad at the made in the US stickers. A lot of times we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we don't intervene in Syria, we're unsympathetic butchers. If we do intervene, we're violent war mongers. Lots of people can complain, few offer solutions.

Some resentment towards the US is quite legitimate. We promised Turkey aid and investment after the first gulf war that we never delivered on. They're ticked - and that anger led to Turkey becoming more conservative, less supportive of Israel and less willing to bail us out of our errors in Iraq. It's also, indirectly, led to support for the arab spring uprisings - which I consider a negative for human rights and the US from any rational perspective.

The bottom line is that we usually aren't why those countries are poor and/or developing and our promotion of free trade has resulted in economic stimulation which will, long term, benefit those countries we exploit for labor and resources. You don't instantly become a prosperous, western country that respects human rights. It takes a long evolution, and ours was easier than most because we truly are a nation of plenty with no real local rivals. We also did a lot of things more intelligently than some others did...our forefathers are the difference between us and countries in south america. They took a more long term approach with a greater focus on infrastructure.

I am a Jew descended from people who would be dead without the US. The only reason my family exists is because the US allowed us to come here from Poland, where we'd been hunted for sport for centuries. The US isn't perfect, but neither is anyone else. We're humans. I know we've done better here and been afforded greater tolerance here, than we have been anywhere else. Yes - I am grateful for that.

If you really want to cut down to brass tacks, the reason Africa has lagged behind Asia and South America in terms of development, it's population growth. China's resurgence is directly related to population control. So is Brazil's. Obviously the other huge reason is that former colonial powers drew large borders on maps in Africa that had little to do with the people who actually lived there. That's led to governmental instability and not many nations have solved it. It goes back to all people being savage when hungry ;)

[Aaron O]

And I would have removed the aggressor.

You're a better man than I Gunga-Din, at least on the internet ;)

[Aaron O]

Well, in essence I don't like how we divide ourselves up based on geographical borders. Just because we dress differently, speak different languages, prefer different foods, doesn't mean we're different...we all still need clothes, means of communication, food, etc. What I'm getting at it is give the UN more teeth and do away with all this nonsense of one country standing up to be another one's saviour, etc. It's a noble act, but that's how lines are drawn and people are always there to further make faint lines deeper. My ideal scenario would be for every country to have a cap on the armed forces spending, normalized to a function of their country's population and area and commit to dispatch half of the forces at the beck and call of the UN. UN should ideally represent the stake of every nation proportionately and not just become a contest for countries trying to enter into the Security Council, etc. All these nonsensical groups we come up with and start naming mean very little...the bottom line is that we're all humans living on earth and the only major issue concerning all of us right now is Global Warming. Less greed, more unity.

Alas, this will never happen.

I don't know about never - never is a big word. In terms of the scope of history, we are becoming more unified, we are heading to an information beehive and the tendency is towards larger Governments. The concept of unified nations is, historically speaking, relatively new and I think the current trend is towards economic blocs. We have huge corporations that are international in scope and which often pay no real homage to national allegiance.

[Fixed]

Does it seem odd to be operating a modern day government on a set of rules written in the 18th century ? Just a thought :)
Cheers

[zap]

Does it seem odd to be operating a modern day government on a set of rules written in the 18th century ? Just a thought :)
Cheers

amendments.

Good luck getting anything done today.

[Jaq]

Does it seem odd to be operating a modern day government on a set of rules written in the 18th century ? Just a thought :)
Cheers

No; at least, not to me. The beauty of the Constitution is in its very ambiguity; as a result, though passages can be quite specific (A President must be born in the United States, must be 35, etc.), it can also be quite comfortably vague, allowing for broad and vital interpretation.

An earlier post in this very thread is a fine example; Justice what's-his-name's interpretation that the 2nd Amendment distinctly implies that a weapon must be "man-portable" [my words] to qualify under the "keep and bear arms" definition. That's the first time I've ever heard that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

To me, this very specifically enjoins Congress - and only Congress - from passing laws. But the nature of the interpretation has become significantly broader over the last 225 years, to the point where the catch phrase is "separation of church and state." Indeed, far more people know that phrasing than the phrasing of the Amendment itself.

I like our Constitution; it's malleable enough to remain relevant, philosophical enough to remain wise, yet hard enough to change to remain enduring. So far, so good.

[Aaron O]

amendments.

Good luck getting anything done today.

By design - our forefathers intentionally introduced gridlock and made things slow as a check on Government power and to promote stability. The idea was that when the fit hit the shan, there was a mechanism for change - but until then, things would evolve slowly.

It's been an effective approach, all things considered. Sure - we all want radical change and instant gratification, but this approach has also protected us from mistakes.

No; at least, not to me. The beauty of the Constitution is in its very ambiguity; as a result, though passages can be quite specific (A President must be born in the United States, must be 35, etc.), it can also be quite comfortably vague, allowing for broad and vital interpretation.

An earlier post in this very thread is a fine example; Justice what's-his-name's interpretation that the 2nd Amendment distinctly implies that a weapon must be "man-portable" [my words] to qualify under the "keep and bear arms" definition. That's the first time I've ever heard that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

To me, this very specifically enjoins Congress - and only Congress - from passing laws. But the nature of the interpretation has become significantly broader over the last 225 years, to the point where the catch phrase is "separation of church and state." Indeed, far more people know that phrasing than the phrasing of the Amendment itself.

I like our Constitution; it's malleable enough to remain relevant, philosophical enough to remain wise, yet hard enough to change to remain enduring. So far, so good.

Exactly - it's flexible and vague when needed so that power rests with the electorate. It allows for evolution while resisting revolution; it's a fantastic balance that has ultimately led to stability, but flexibility in crises. Awesome post - a lot of folks don't understand this.

[Kontact]

no what CO taught us was that the wimps that need a gun to defend themselves are in fact wimps and not deserving of respect. The "men" who put themselves on top of their girlfriends so they could survive are in fact selfish boys. Our fellow man (society) are more important than any one of us. instead of protecting your GF how about protecting all the people in the theater. Silly people who throw smoke in the dark and add a gas mask to the confusion are victims standing. The fact that no one turned that fool into a victim is beyond me.

I take my 7yo daughter to the matinee every Sunday, we buy popcorn and soda (which my wife disapproves of and leads to the fun) and watch a movie together. If an idiot tried shooting in my theater he wouldn't make it through the first 30 round magazine. Guns are nothing to fear, fools with guns are less to fear popping smoke in a dark theater proves you to be a fool. pro-masks take away your peripheral vision and SPORTS takes enough time that the military teaches you to fall if your gun jams..
With respect, your posts about what a .223 AR-15 will do around metal chairs and in confined spaces is just plain wrong. Some of the rounds went through theater walls and hurt people in other theaters. Charging a man with a rifle is only going to guarantee that you are the one shot, especially when there are chairs and people in the way.

For all we know, some of the dead DID try and stop him. There's no bigger target than someone 5 feet away.

BTW, I'm former military, knew a lot of people with well earned opinions about combat rifles and have shot them extensively myself: He couldn't have picked a better weapon for a massacre.

[Honey]

but as (now) an aside, that's a major bummer that the drivers encountered in NZ were bad (i'm sorry that was like 4 pages ago and i forget who said it) that's disappointing although from what my limited knowledge of the place is the opportunity for mtn and x riding seems pretty fantastic so i could probably deal with that.

anyone have thoughts on awesome places to live. there's probably been a thread about it but in this light more about the people there than what there is to do.

you all are way over my head with the government and fire arms discussion. politicians are corrupt because they are part of a flawed system that developed a flaw not predicted when the system was conceived. politicians back (as in late 1700s) in the day were well educated (typically from wealthy families as those went hand in hand) individuals who believed they had a sense of duty to guide the country. USA wasn't a powerhouse so i kind of think it forced that sort of thinking. That combination was productive and there wasn't as much capital flowing through the government as one of the reasons for its conception was strong states right (albeit a bit more central govt than the previous confederation).

All that is way out of date we're trying to solve complex mutlidimensional non-linear type equations with an abacus. granted it's alot better than counting on your fingers but because it once was a great tool doesn't mean it is anymore.

as you guys said, it's government for hire.

[Germany_chris]

With respect, your posts about what a .223 AR-15 will do around metal chairs and in confined spaces is just plain wrong. Some of the rounds went through theater walls and hurt people in other theaters. Charging a man with a rifle is only going to guarantee that you are the one shot, especially when there are chairs and people in the way.

For all we know, some of the dead DID try and stop him. There's no bigger target than someone 5 feet away.

BTW, I'm former military, knew a lot of people with well earned opinions about combat rifles and have shot them extensively myself: He couldn't have picked a better weapon for a massacre.

traveling through a wall is different that traveling through a steel backed chair...

This qualifies your opinion above my opinion how exactly?

The .223 or 5.56 NATO round was never intended to be a penetrator round. The military has other rounds for that need. The man picked a silly weapon to kill folks with in the situation he was in. A .40, .45, 9mm or 10mm would have been a better weapon. the .45 would have punched through steel backed chairs and muzzle flash would have been easier to suppress. If you you want to kill people they need to feel safe to move. A weapon that throws 18" of muzzle flash doesn't exactly engender feelings of safety.

[PQJ]

traveling through a wall is different that traveling through a steel backed chair...

This qualifies your opinion above my opinion how exactly?

The .223 or 5.56 NATO round was never intended to be a penetrator round. The military has other rounds for that need. The man picked a silly weapon to kill folks with in the situation he was in. A .40, .45, 9mm or 10mm would have been a better weapon. the .45 would have punched through steel backed chairs and muzzle flash would have been easier to suppress. If you you want to kill people they need to feel safe to move. A weapon that throws 18" of muzzle flash doesn't exactly engender feelings of safety.

Lemme guess. The 9/11 hijackers were comical foolish idiots who should've selected different planes and flown out of different airports and if you were there you would've stopped them?

[Germany_chris]

Lemme guess. The 9/11 hijackers were comical foolish idiots who should've selected different planes and flown out of different airports and if you were there you would've stopped them?

They were very effective, how about that flight 93 though..

The fool in CO took out 13 or so of 70..

[rugbysecondrow]

Lemme guess. The 9/11 hijackers were comical foolish idiots who should've selected different planes and flown out of different airports and if you were there you would've stopped them?


Flight 93 my man...and a rugby player no less, helped save the lives of the third target for that day.

Yea, real people step up each day and do what they can. I hope I never have to be in that situation, I hope I am able to do the right thing if I ever have to.

Again, civility is one thing, violent attacks is something all together different. I am fortunate, most folks are civil to me. I bet most folks are civil to William as well. :)

[1centaur]

Cyclists discussing stuff like this is what makes the Paceline fun and unpredictable. Glad it's run this far despite some widely divergent views that are important to their holders.

People in large groups are not particularly nice nor particularly smart. No Utopian governmental idea will change that, so no awesome country is possible. At the least, the mean people next door will take it over for its oceanfront property.

We have borders for exactly this reason - so a group of people with common something can control their circumstances to some extent for a while (everything being very temporary in the grand scheme). It's why we have towns and why we have fences around our yards, and why we lock our doors.

America started with an idea - Freedom - and governmental ideas to protect and build upon that idea. We're less than 250 years old, nothing even in global terms let alone universal ones, and the idea has been diluted and distorted and reduced in all sorts of ways. A question to ponder - do all societal norms converge given the passage of enough time? Will we become Europe become China? Enjoy the remains of our day as long as you can. Another day will become reality soon enough.

[Kontact]

traveling through a wall is different that traveling through a steel backed chair...

This qualifies your opinion above my opinion how exactly?

The .223 or 5.56 NATO round was never intended to be a penetrator round. The military has other rounds for that need. The man picked a silly weapon to kill folks with in the situation he was in. A .40, .45, 9mm or 10mm would have been a better weapon. the .45 would have punched through steel backed chairs and muzzle flash would have been easier to suppress. If you you want to kill people they need to feel safe to move. A weapon that throws 18" of muzzle flash doesn't exactly engender feelings of safety.

Well, if you want a dissertation on the .223 round from it's original destabilized form using 1:14 rifling, followed by arctic tests, 1:12 rifling, then NATO standardization to 1:7 to decrease wounding and increase penetration, I'd be happy to give you some reference books. But I've shot every round you're talking about, and .223 is a rifle round with extremely high penetration. Everything has too much flash in a theater, but rifles have flash hiders. I've seen what all those rounds do when they hit sheet metal, and .223 doesn't do much more than leave a hole and keep moving, despite the "intentions" of Eugene Stoner 50 years ago.

My main point is that calling people cowards because they didn't "realize" that it would be safe to throw themselves at someone with an AR-15 is ludicrous. Only a belt fed machinegun could have been appreciably more dangerous. I think you dishonor the dead with your armchair quarterbacking and wives tale ballistics knowledge.

[Aaron O]

Cyclists discussing stuff like this is what makes the Paceline fun and unpredictable. Glad it's run this far despite some widely divergent views that are important to their holders.

People in large groups are not particularly nice nor particularly smart. No Utopian governmental idea will change that, so no awesome country is possible. At the least, the mean people next door will take it over for its oceanfront property.

We have borders for exactly this reason - so a group of people with common something can control their circumstances to some extent for a while (everything being very temporary in the grand scheme). It's why we have towns and why we have fences around our yards, and why we lock our doors.

America started with an idea - Freedom - and governmental ideas to protect and build upon that idea. We're less than 250 years old, nothing even in global terms let alone universal ones, and the idea has been diluted and distorted and reduced in all sorts of ways. A question to ponder - do all societal norms converge given the passage of enough time? Will we become Europe become China? Enjoy the remains of our day as long as you can. Another day will become reality soon enough.

I would disagree a bit - America started with the interests of merchants - free trade - and individual freedoms beyond the current norms were required as the ideology behind free trade. The US Revolution was essentially a rejection of mercantile capitalism and a war to further the interests of the merchant class. Religious freedom grew out of that movement - in the past the church had interfered with trade and banking. Additionally, we had more religious diversity than other areas and religious tolerance was a way to share power and avoid open conflict. Freedom of speech grew out of that - you have to be able to speak in order to conduct business. Due process and the like grew out of that - they were all curbs on Government restrictions, including free trade.

Marx was right about ideology - it justifies power, it's not the reason for its accumulation.

[Earl Gray]

no what CO taught us was that the wimps that need a gun to defend themselves are in fact wimps and not deserving of respect. The "men" who put themselves on top of their girlfriends so they could survive are in fact selfish boys. Our fellow man (society) are more important than any one of us. instead of protecting your GF how about protecting all the people in the theater. Silly people who throw smoke in the dark and add a gas mask to the confusion are victims standing. The fact that no one turned that fool into a victim is beyond me.

I take my 7yo daughter to the matinee every Sunday, we buy popcorn and soda (which my wife disapproves of and leads to the fun) and watch a movie together. If an idiot tried shooting in my theater he wouldn't make it through the first 30 round magazine. Guns are nothing to fear, fools with guns are less to fear popping smoke in a dark theater proves you to be a fool. pro-masks take away your peripheral vision and SPORTS takes enough time that the military teaches you to fall if your gun jams..


What this post taught me is that you are an idiot!

[Louis]

It's getting harder and harder to separate the wheat from the chaff in this one...

[Jaq]

What this post taught me is that you are an idiot!

With all due respect, don't make it personal, or take it somewhere else.

With regards to Germany Chris, I just don't think your arguments hold much water, particularly in this very specific case (the Aurora shooting).

Though Colorado's a right-to-carry state, private businesses have the right to refuse entry to anyone carrying a firearm. The theater chain had that exact policy; thus no one inside the theater was likely to be carrying a weapon.

Right-to-carry advocates in the state have been quick to point to that as a main reason that the shooter wasn't killed. Law enforcement officials have ridiculed that notion. I tend to side with law enforcement officials when it comes to expertise on such matters.

Further, the specifics of this venue/event make the idea of an armed response all but risible, imho. The movie was 1/2 hour along when Holmes left, re-entered, tossed smoke grenades and began shooting. So:

A dark theater suddenly fills with smoke, which diffuses and diffracts the light, while also capturing and distorting the projected images. People are already tense, given the kind of movie this is, and now they're screaming, running, trampling and desperate to get away.

To suggest that an ordinary person would have the presence of mind to calmly draw, take aim, and shoot at (and incapacitate) a smoke-obscured target (dressed in dark clothing) without hitting bystanders or without then being targeted is, in my humble opinion, fairly wishful thinking.

Unlike, say, the open campus at Virginia Tech or the Army base in Texas, this was pure terror in a tight, small space. Perhaps you have experience in these kinds of situations; if so, you might be able to argue that you could have intervened. Otherwise, the argument is the very definition of counter factual. What might have happened is utterly unknowable. With a nod to Aaron, I say we say a Kaddish for the departed, spend a little more time with those we love, and (with a nod to Bill and Ted) be excellent to each other.

[SoCalSteve]

Ok, this has gone on long enough.

Thank you all...:cool: