*RIP* Charlton Heston

[conate]

interestingly enough...

I see both sides of the political coin in the USA trying to keep the polarization going.

The dems are always saying the repubs are evil and vice versa.

What the current Bush admin has done to the country is truly, truly, criminal. However, you can dig up dirt like that in any administration - though perhaps not to the magnitude of what we are seeing now.

Having said that, perhaps we should stop saying "Party X is wrong" and start saying "How can we build bridges between the different factions in the country today?"

When I was insulted here, should I have huffed out saying 'oh you leftists have no clue as to what freedom is like!" ? Don't be ridiculous.

We ALL want the same things - a safe a secure society, good food, nice reasonable places to live, etc.

What we need to do is have a dialog. For example, I'm very comfortable as a shooter, and around firearms of many different types. For those who are not, why not? Perhaps we can discuss why this is the case. Some people have been victimes of violence and a firearm has been involved. Yet, if you have a car accident does it mean that all cars are bad? Or if you're working to restore an old washing machine and get an electric shock, does it mean that electricity is evil?

More people in the USA are killed by medical errors than by firearms in a given year, and the carnage on our road is SO BAD that it dwarfs every other cause of death in the country. Yet I do not see suggestions that automobiles should be banned.

Regarding machine guns, I've never shot one. But is a machine gun any worse than an electric wire? I doubt it. It's the intent of the person involved.

Now, regarding the NRA, I have never once seen anything in any of their literature that implied that people should be compelled to own a gun. As far as I know, the only people in the world who are compelled to own guns are the Israelis and the Swiss - who as I understand it mostly all have machine guns at home since most men are members of their version of the national guard.

What is tiring about the NRA is that they seem to believe that every republican 'endorses freedom' while every democrat 'hates freedom' which is ridiculous. What you can say is that far more democrats than republicans endorse gun control, something which I don't understand why it goes by party line. However, there are many anti gun republicans and pro gun democrats.

The issues we have here are the US Society no longer seems to believe in self control and personal responsibility for individual actions. THAT is the root of crime and violence, in my opinion. Forcing people even further down the road to a police state is not the answer. Heck you could have everyone shackled and violence would still be an issue - look at prision populations. (Actually, you don't want to- you don't meet the better class of people there).

Nate

 

[58limited]

The issues we have here are the US Society no longer seems t

~self control and personal responsibility for individual actions.

I agree. I see this every day.

I'm a gun owner, and I live near a bad area of town, so I keep my guns readily accessible. When visitors with children come over the guns are unloaded and put away. I enjoy shooting and have even gone hunting (although I have never shot anything except a squirrel when I was a kid). I decided not to join the NRA simply because they started getting more "militant" with their language, almost like some extremist groups. Charlton Heston may have been president, but the executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre is the one responsible for most of the rhetoric that turned me off. When you get that combative, it ultimately hurts the cause instead of helping it.

My way of fighting gun control: I write my congressmen and senators when gun control legislation comes up, and I have a college friend who worked for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, and is still working in D.C., whom I can give correspondence to that I know it will be read by the senator, and not a staffer.

In college I wrote a few editorials for the college rag that were printed. I researched decades of the FBI's official annual crime report "Crime in the U.S." to determine the rise and fall of gun related crime versus other weapons, and the murder rate (number of victims per 100,000 people - takes into consideration population growth) in which guns, knives, and other weapons were used, and compared these stats with car accident deaths, and medical deaths (heart disease, cancer, etc.). Now, I haven't done this research since 1998, so I don't have a firm handle on the last decade. But my research up until 1998 found that basically, the gun murder rate on a nation-wide basis peaked in the 1970's and has declined since with notable exceptions for individual cities such as L.A. and D.C. Texas adopted a concealed handgun license law and our crime rate dropped, despite the gun conrol people's claim that we would become like the Wild West, same claims were made when Florida adopted a concealed gun policy and their crime rate dropped too without any Wild West shootouts.

 

[goatfarmer]

I agree. Until you get rid of the "right VS left" dialog, this country and people will continue to be divided.

I'm a gun owner, but NOT a member of the NRA, for some of the same reasons David mentioned. The NRA, in my opinion, is another political action committee, just like AARP, many unions, etc. They chastise anyone who disagrees with their stance, have Washington higher ups in their pockets, and make the leaders of the PAC's well compensated, at the members expense.

The Democrats have as many problems as the Republicans do. If a Democrat is elected President, we'll see how bad they are, just as the Repubs in office these days have shown their faults.

'nuff said

 

[conate]

In general, I believe...

...the government that governs best, governs least.

I don't understand why so many people, on the right and on the left, who profess to mistrust government, wants to yield so many powers to it.

Huh? Isn't this counter intuitive?

Nate

 

[panthera]

Nate,

I think it is because they don't see it as "yielding" but, rather, as "wielding". They can't force me to stop loving my partner themselves, but if the government takes me at gun point, tortures me and murders me, well, that would sure put a stop to it.
Same with the knee-jerk liberals. They can't force people to stop driving 1989 Cadillac Fleetwoods...but if only the cops were empowered to pull me over, spread my legs and cart me off to the stocks for a week of fun in the sun, then surely the trade off of my (unimportant because I am a sinner) civil rights is more than justified.
In both cases, the Christianists and the Eco-terrorists, they aren't thinking of being, themselves, subservient to the government. Oh, no - just us other "bad guys."
And that is the real problem with the current administration. Emboldended by the Christianists and wing-nuts, they have tried and largely succeeded in stripping Americans of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.
But since they are "pro-gun", "pro-life" and "patriotic" and "Christian", the red-necks in my family let them get away with it - and would vote for them again.
It is interesting to note that the super politically correct eco-terrorist arm of the Greens here in Germany broke with the party once they were in power. They were furious that the Greens did not use their governmental powers to coerce and compel. Left the greens a pretty stable, relatively sensible group who did a lot - and whose closest allies are the Conservatives, who'd a thunk it?

 

[conate]

How about that!!

Panthera,

Your comments are exactly why I believe the American Right and American Left are exactly the same.

"Green" and "Conservative" aren't that far apart - both seek to CONSERVE -- the world itself.

Too bad that in the USA 'green' is a marketing phenomena, not really an attempt to use less resources.

I do disagree with your comment that implies that this current administration is the first to strip your rights away. It's been going on far longer than that. Indeed it was Eisenhower who attempted to warn Americans about the dangers of the military-industrial complex and what it meant for freedom.

Nate

 

[panthera]

Nate,

I don't mean this is the first. Just, this is the first to go this far since Abraham Lincoln - and he repented.
It is unfortunate that Americans are so horribly isolated - the country needs the rest of the world and we need the US.
Ike couldn't run for the Repbulicans today. He was a pragmatist economically=Socialist!
He believed that gays should be left alone=Destroyer of Marriage!
He believed that the military-industrial complex was taking over the duties of the soverign state, ruled by the people: French!
He believed that each individual was responsible for his/her own actions, period=Godless, Apostate!
He considered environmental protection relevant and wanted to limit leveraged finaccial ventures=Marxist!

Nope, today he'd be an out-there, far left commie-pinko-liberal-fag-anti-Christ-tree-hugger for the Republican party.
Hell, Richard Nixon would be to the left of the Republicans, today. Not to mention more constitutionally sound.
Now 'that' is scary.
If Ike were running today, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

 

[conate]

how bout that.

Panthera, you said it better than I could!!