Open Carry
POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 03:37
VIEWED: 5718
PAGE 1 of 1
Here in my state/town, Im starting to see a lot more open carry folks.
(By more, I mean I've see 3...but thats a lot.)
Whats your opinion? Does it hurt? Does it help?
Would you?
Im kind of on the fence about it myself. Yeah, it would be great to "flex my rights", so to speak... but it would probably just freak out the populace. And I would lose the element of surprise.
Sorry if this topic has been talked to death... just happened to see it again this morning, and its on my mind.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm torn on this one. Texas has been pushing - or at least certain elements in the state have been - for Open Carry for a while now. We've currently got Concealed Carry (with a permit), and we have thus far avoided becoming the wild wild west with bullets flying hither and yon.
Concealed carry just means you don't KNOW if someone is carrying or not, unless you're quite observant and case the joint first. Open carry would mean you WOULD know - unless we had both open AND concealed carry here. So would knowing that someone was armed decrease the chances that you're going to stick up that particular person or place, or does it just mean you'd better get the drop on them before they can get their piece out and fire back?
If we had open carry, I'd go for the permit, but I doubt I'd actually openly carry, unless I were "on patrol" as I needed to be in my old 'hood once in a while.
For me, open carry would be just one more thing for the cops to hassle a person about. You see someone with a gun on their hip, and while you might assume they're legally carrying it, you also might assume they AREN'T. Like I said, the way things look, if they do it here, it will be by permit and license (at least as far as I understand things on this issue locally), and that just gives every cop who sees you "reasonable cause" to dress you down and demand to see your papers. And frankly, who needs the hassle, if you can carry concealed and they don't have to know...
Now, would it freak people out? Depends. If I'm in the grocery store and see someone buying beer with a Glock on their hip, I'm a li'l nervous, and I'm going to be keeping pretty close tabs on them until they're out of the store and away from me. I do the same with cops if I'm at a Chili's, too. It's not the gun I don't trust - it's the guy behind it I'm not too sure about. :) Now, if *I* had a gun on me, I might feel a little more at ease - but then everyone else might be freaked out by THAT!
So, as you can see, there's pros and cons. And like I said, I'm a bit torn on this one.
Mike
Old friend charity
Cruel twisted smile
And the smile signals emptiness
For me
Starless and Bible black
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Humans + automobiles = some humans + automobiles + booze, which = some deaths.
Humans + guns = some humans + guns + booze, and some humans + guns + lack of responsibility, and some humans + guns + booze + temper; which = some deaths.
I'm for minimizing the "deaths" part. The more people who walk around with guns, the more people who will lose their tempers, get drunk, find SOME reason to shoot at someone else...and what about the bystanders who happen to be nearby?
I don't buy ANY of the arguments for open or concealed carry. The odds of being attacked and needing a gun to protect yourself are what, compared to the odds of being shot if everyone carried guns? We won't know until a lot of people start carrying them, but I'll wager everything I've got that when and if people DO, we'll face a helluvalot more danger from those carrying guns ostensibly to "protect themselves" than we will from actual muggers/robbers/etc.
Thank gawd I (hopefully) won't be around long enough to see it, but I have no doubts. How many idiots out there would take a pot-shot at a cop who pulled them over? How many of those protesters, riled up as they've been, would you be SURE wouldn't fire off a round? How many people do you think are around who would be convinced they have the right to shoot someone because they're "in the right"? How many kids, if guns were prevalent, do you think would get into trouble? Don't give me TODAY's figure, guess on the premise that lots of people have guns around a lot of the time. Open or concealed, if you increase the number, you increase the violence. Period.
And don't give me the bullshit about you can kill someone with a knife or ANYTHING else. Someone with a gun feels more powerful than those around him; some with a gun will feel more powerful than even those around them with guns, or just plain won't THINK before acting. You got a knife handy, most people have to think twice about whether to strike out with it or not; with a gun, not so much. Don't talk to me about what YOU would do, think about all the idjits out there and tell me what THEY would do.
In one's home is one thing, hauling one around the streets is quite another.
I've heard all the stuff about "responsible gun owners"...I say flatly, for every responsible one you'll easily find five IRresponsible ones if everyone can carry guns.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki. You've been blessed never to need a weapon to defend your life.
Be thankful for that.
ETA: Seriously. Im not taking away anything from you by saying that. Just that this is a topic you *might* not have the history to talk about.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nope, I know I don't. The fact remains that the same can be said for the VAST majority of Americans. Therefore, to put guns in the hands of everyone makes no sense to me. I see far more potential danger in everyone being able to carry around guns than I do for those who actually MIGHT need them.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Then you must give up your cell phone.
Too many people drive while talking on them, causing too many accidents.
Its for your safety, dont you see? (snark)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, you screwed up that one, kiddo, sorry. I don't have a cell phone. Wouldn't use it when I drive if I did. And yes, I don't think everyone needs a cell phone and I hate how they are abused.
Try again? You gotta come up with something that is really deadly if used by humans; something that can cause the death of others if they misuse it, and then draw a corollary to the NEED to have it...? Jim's talking about getting a cell phone lately--if we did, he'd carry it to work because he needs it if (as recently) he gets a flat on his bike; I might carry it when I go hiking, but that's all we'd use it for.
Cars and guns are about the only two things I can think of; both can be mixed with alcohol and/or temper and/or stupidity and cause the deaths of others as a result. Unfortunately, especially here in CA, everyone DOES need a car (what little rapid transit we have sux). Can you come up with anything else?
THAT'S why I'm not in favor of gun ownership.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A butcher knife. Hell, a steak knife.
Used to have one taped to my back.
Meant to cut meat, and I damn well made sure it did.
ETA: Like I said before, Niki. This might not be the thread you want to be in on.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uhhh, I did some editing on the above, just so's you know; I added some stuff.
However, as to your response, I already addressed it: Quote:
And don't give me the bullshit about you can kill someone with a knife or ANYTHING else. Someone with a gun feels more powerful than those around him; some with a gun will feel more powerful than even those around them with guns, or just plain won't THINK before acting. You got a knife handy, most people have to think twice about whether to strike out with it or not; with a gun, not so much. Don't talk to me about what YOU would do, think about all the idjits out there and tell me what THEY would do.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ahh, and you added to yours, so I'll add rather than edit. I see no reason I shouldn't be in this thread; I speak for one side of the argument, you for another. That's what these discussions are about; differing opinions.
I repeat, I maintain that the VAST majority of Americans have no need whatsoever to carry a gun outside their homes. I'm not speaking about hunters (I won't, except to say hunting for food: good; hunting for sport: bad--my opinion), I'm talking about everyday folk walking around every part of America. Guns aren't NEEDED, and are dangerous. I know it's a hot-button topic, but that's my opinion.
I know the thing about "if guns are outlawed..."; outside the home, I don't buy it. Outlaws will always use weapons; the more guns out there, the more NON-outlaws will cause harm. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So your answer is to leave the innocent unable to defend themselves?
ETA: Outside their homes? So the innocent are supposed to huddle inside their homes, with their weapons, unable to go outside?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To quote Mike:Quote:
That's it. For me, anyone who feels the need to carry a gun in public is DEFINITELY someone I'm not sure about. I don't know their attitude, sobriety, self-restraint, why they want to carry a gun, or anything else. So I immediately mistrust them.
If I'm in the grocery store and see someone buying beer with a Glock on their hip, I'm a li'l nervous, and I'm going to be keeping pretty close tabs on them until they're out of the store and away from me. I do the same with cops if I'm at a Chili's, too. It's not the gun I don't trust - it's the guy behind it I'm not too sure about.
We need more of that going around???
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"We need more of that going around???"
Yes.
A 110 lb woman is no threat to a 250 lb gangster.
If they both have guns, it makes the odds even.
Why is that so hard to understand?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't have an answer, I just don't think everyone carrying guns IS the answer. It's not black and white, not "everyone or no one".
So your answer is to leave the innocent unable to defend themselves?
It's impossible to stop guns in America, they're already here and the NRA is far too strong a lobby to ever be overcome. I just firmly believe it doesn't need to be increased to carry laws, and I think those guns which are obviously "overkill" should be eliminated. Some things are just plain stupid...automatic rifles among them. America's love-affair with guns is sad; the rest of the world looks at us askance for it, with good reason, but it's not gonna change. I just don't want to see it increased.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
A 110 lb woman is no threat to a 250 lb gangster.
If they both have guns, it makes the odds even.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Illogical. The MAJORITY of America is not a case of 110-lb women v. 250-lb gangsters. So why should the MAJORITY of Americans carry guns? That reasoning is even harder to understand.
And no, it definitely doesn't make the odds even, by a long shot! A gangster uses his gun, feels free TO use it--a normal 110-lb woman doesn't, maybe carries one to make her feel safe, but let's be realistic here: if the two collide, which one is going to win? It's not really even, surely you aren't saying that if you think about it?
Sure, by your reckoning, the woman would be educated on the use of her gun, would practice with it, etc. But HOW MANY WOULD?! If everyone carried guns openly, come on, be real, how many would just go out and buy a gun, probably go through some short mandatory education, period? An AWFUL lot of them, especially young people!
Let's add to that, how many would be careful with their guns? Woman carries gun in purse, drops purse, gun falls out...hmmm, someone seeing it grabs maybe...? Woman carries gun in purse to work, lays it down, maybe gun drops out, she leaves it behind, feeling safe. Youngster sees gun in purse, takes it...and on and on and on. The scenarios are endless.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You should visit the "rest of the world" then.
Like Britain, or Australia.
See how well their gun control has worked.
You know, even in Iraq, our soldiers gave them Ak's in exchange for their RPGs.
But like I said, your opinion is valid, in that its free speech. But you should chooses a topic you have experience with.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You can't discount me because I haven't lived in the 'hood or something, or faced violence. Human nature is human nature, and we're debating ALL humans carrying guns, not just the 'hood or the outback.
I'm not saying guns should be illegal, obviously! Got news for you, tho', we're not the "arms dealers to the world" for nothing. If America weren't so gun-happy, you'd have to prove the rest of the world wouldn't proliferate with guns as much anyway.
Leaving aside that guns exist everywhere, I maintain one more tme: the VAST MAJORITY of the world doesn't need to carry guns, any more than the vast majority of America. So why should everyone carry one? You still haven't given me one good reason for that.
There's a blindness here, Wulf, that you're not seeing. Your reasoning seems to be "because I've been where violence threatens and I've needed a gun, it must be the same everywhere so everyone should carry a gun". That's not logical.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Or, its because... if you have a gun, you dont have to worry about the bastard who does.
In a way, its the theory of mutual extermination.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
p.s. you haven't responded to my questioning the 110-lb woman v. 250-lb gangster scenario, by the way. Are you TRULY saying that would make the odds even? And even so, are you truly saying all women should carry guns everywhere?
I'll check back, but right now I gotta get off, lost half a day again and promised I wouldn't. Gotta go do my exercises.
At present I have a scratched cornea, so can't use my contacts and only have one working eye. I have braces on both wrists (one for double-surgery broken wrist which will never heal and always be painful, the other I haven't seen the doctor about--because I JUST got put in a knee-high "boot" for achilles tendonitis). So I have both wrists in braces, one bad knee whose pain I just ignore, a boot on the other leg, one eye, bad back, and it's time I go do the exercises for those parts which are in physical therapy, and ice ankle and wrist. Then I gotta tackle housework. This place here is deadly, I haven't got the self-discipline to get away, dammit...!
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Niki. You've been blessed never to need a weapon to defend your life."
Ya' know - that's the FIRST thing you say when anyone disagrees with you about guns. We went round and round over this a year ago - I know, b/c I've been reviewing your posts to see when you went off the rails. (Not snark - a statement of fact)
As I posted then, I've lived bad neighborhoods; walked, took the bus, or bicycled everywhere; had two places broken into, once when I was there; been stalked several times getting from here to there; seen people beaten up, cops pulling guns --- and I never needed a gun to be safe.
Deal with it.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh damn, another response. Okay, quickly: Quote:
Bullshit. Just having a gun doesn't mean that, it means worrying about which one of you is more experienced and the better shot! It's never mutual extermination. Now I'm OUTTA here...!
if you have a gun, you dont have to worry about the bastard who does. In a way, its the theory of mutual extermination
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"p.s. you haven't responded to my questioning the 110-lb woman v. 250-lb gangster scenario, by the way. Are you TRULY saying that would make the odds even? And even so, are you truly saying all women should carry guns everywhere?"
Yes. I am. In fact, should I have daughters, they WILL know how to shoot, and have the best weapons I can provide.
Because, you put a 110lb woman up against a 250 man... hell... the guy will win. But give the girl a gun?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, good for you.
Glad you had a lucky break.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki, in this case, you are in the wrong, and there ARE numbers to back that up. Cities with the STRONGEST gun control laws on their books are some of the highest crime areas in the nation (DC, anyone?). On the flipside, Frem will be along shortly, I'm sure, to quote chapter and verse on the little burg that made it a law that every household MUST have a gun - and crime went down in that area, and has stayed down. And its name escapes me, dammit.
So an armed society is not automatically a society bent on murderous rage, and an unarmed society is not one big happy festival of love. Sometimes there are going to be people who SEARCH for the "gun free zones" because they know it provides a target-rich environment of people who are, by law, unarmed and unable to resist.
As I said, I'm torn. Should EVERYONE have a gun? Doubtful. But so far, I've never had my head blown off by a cop having a bad day - and I HAVE run into cops having bad days!
I believe it was Heinlein who first said that an armed society is a polite society.
How do you feel about the Swiss? The Germans? Are they decent societies, overall? Are they murderous banditos hell-bent on killing you and yours in fits of road-rage?
Oh, and don't even get me started on cell phones. You think drinking and driving is a problem? Look into some of the studies on cell phones and drivine, texting and driving, etc. Should cell phones be banned? Should cars? Cars kill more Americans every year than guns. The flu kills almost as many people in this country every year as guns do - shall we mandate "flu control" by law, in the interest of public safety?
Mike
Old friend charity
Cruel twisted smile
And the smile signals emptiness
For me
Starless and Bible black
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No lucky break. I stood out in the neighborhood. And as a young slight (though fit) female I WAS a target. I WAS stalked three times, each time while I was on foot, far from help, and the male was in car. So, there's the scenario just as you described - a small female on foot no less, and much larger male in a car.
So, AFTER being targeted, how do YOU think I managed without that all important gun ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You ran.
You were lucky enough to get away.
Or, maybe you "talked' your way out of it.
Either way, you were lucky.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I used being on foot to my advantage.
I put obstacles between myself and their cars.
I went around a corner and disappeared into a yard where they could not see me (it was at night).
I put myself in inaccessible spots where they would HAVE to get out of their car (none chose to).
I walked and talked myself out of danger.
If I had been physically confronted, I was mentally prepared to blind them for life and take whatever other pieces of them I could.
I KNEW I was in danger, and was prepared to defend myself as viciously as I could manage.
I ALWAYS thought that if it were one on one and THEY were unarmed, I would win, because I was willing to do more damage than they would expect.
Not lucky - street smart.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nik,
good point. Of course if you didn't have one, you'd need another solution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue. Thats my point.
You went through all of that.. when you COULD have just pulled a pistol.
And again, what would have happened if you hadnt been so lucky?
I hear you have back problems now..
(Not trying to be mean. Just trying to teach)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
My state (Arizona) is an open carry state. I could walk down the street with a revolver strapped to my hip. If I wish to conceal, then I need a permit.
While it's refreshing to know I have the option, it is one I don't exercise. In general, I find that the presence of a fella with a gun makes most people uncomfortable.
I do not like making people uncomfortable, so I don't go heeled in public places. I used to have a concealed permit in Florida, now expired, that allowed me to take guns all over the place without bothering anyone. This is my preference.
To me, there's more to being polite than 'please' and 'thank you.' I prefer to exercise my gun rights in the most polite way available to me.
Now, if I was going somewhere populated by people who definitely wouldn't mind such a display (there is a diner in town where everyone is heeled) then I might strap one on if I felt like it. But the fact is, I feel safer in that joint than most other places, so I'm not compelled to carry when I eat there. I guess I'm wired differently than most folks, feeling better knowing that everyone around me has a gun.
It takes some of the pressure off.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I COULD have just pulled a pistol - and then what ? Walked backwards for a mile trying to cover my exit ? Shot them for crime of being in their cars ?
You seem to think that once a pistol comes out, it's all over. In fact, it's now escalated into a confrontation, and it's just beginning.
If you confront someone, you might win.
If you escape, you always win.
As for what do the old and pained do - thank god for cell phones, IR home security detectors, and escape routes (all good for fires and other emergencies as well).
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lemme carry that a little further, but short, as I have six tons of crap on my plate to handle right now (G20 mess).
Right, the primary "weapon" is what's between your ears, but damn me if I don't like having the proper tools handy in case of emergency.
I got a spare tire, I got a smoke alarm and fire extiguisher, I got a first aid kit, and I got a pistol, and I got ALL that stuff for the same damned reasons - IN CASE I NEED IT, HOPING I DON'T.
But if it comes to cases and you DO need it, which is statistically a viable enough possibility at least once over a lifetime - lacking it may be your death.
Remember I mentioned a class of fifty seven, giving hell over those physical tests...
Care to guess how many of those fifty seven are still alive now ?
One.
I do plan to stay that way - if it involves running away, I'll run away, if it involves blasting a couple corbon powrballs through someone who's intent on making me dead, I'll do that too - but my PREFERENCE is, as always...
TRY REASON FIRST
And if/when reason don't work, there's force, 70grains at a times worth, but it ain't the first thing I think of, oh hell no.
Why the hell do people act like just touching a firearm instantly turns people into flamin lunatics - that's the same attitude behind "Reefer Madness", and one look at that laughable piece of shit... will tell you EXACTLY what I think of the often expressed opinion that simply picking up a weapon would have the same instant and radical effect as the morons who made that horror thought one hit of weed would.
You ask me, that demonstrates a verifiable level of hysteria and insanity amongst those who argue against it, and given just how many people that I *knew personally* that vilification of self defense directly or indirectly had something to do it, I take a dim view of that opinion.
In fact, I take the SAME view of it, that I would a large disreputable man with obvious issues, holding a knife and twitching at the edge of my personal space, who told me to put my gun down for my own safety - that's EXACTLY how I look at the people making this argument, ok ?
Let's be crystalline clear about that.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah, here ya go - Kennesaw, GA:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
Sorry the link is from WorldNetDaily, but it does raise a good point: The population has more than quintupled since they passed that ordinance, and in more than 25 years, there hasn't been a murder there. Not one gun death, it would seem.
Other places have apparently followed suit, or are considering doing so.
Oh, and according to the article, Kennesaw's crime rate has dropped by more than 50% since the "anti-ban" went into effect.
Mike
Old friend charity
Cruel twisted smile
And the smile signals emptiness
For me
Starless and Bible black
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We are now having 1 or 2 robberies every day in our county, and murders are up. Local govt is trippin over themselves to ban guns on all govt property. One carjacking/rape/torture/mass murder is on trial this week, of a dope dealer/addict fired from his job who could not pay rent, so he flipped out and went on a killing spree, to get a govt retirement pension to life in prison.
www.knoxnews.com/search/?q=christian+newsome&f=all&t=news
This week one store owner made the mistake a lot of shopkeepers make, of not wearing their gun (open or concealed), just leaving it behind the counter, often out in the open so every customer can see it -- and grab it. Or carry it in their briefcase full of cash (that way the thief gets both the cash and the gun).
Most such guns are too big to carry confortably. Their "logic" appears to be just looking at a big gun scares robbers. I beg to differ.
The local biz owner was killed by his own gun during a robbery. Police are refusing to release the security video (perhaps because the killer is a police informant with immunity from arrest, or a hitman hired by police-protected mafia).
www.knoxnews.com/search/?q=mullins+robbery+store&t=&sortby=date
The dead store owner's last name is Mullins, same same as a local chopshop carthief ex-cop arrested for concealing stolen property, with modus operandi of hiring hitmen to kill his competition in the govt towing business (according to hsi own employees), who I sued in a class action for stealing my 2 cars.
I discussed this murder today on a radio show I co-hosted about pro se law, which includes the law of citizens arrest. Gun owners should always carry handcuffs (plastic cable ties are probably best), because once they make a citizens arrest, it's very hard (and unsafe for everyone) to keep a gun pointed at the suspects until police arrive to transport to jail. Private security guards carry handcuffs and make citizen's arrests.
If you're gonna leave a gun out in the open, or open carry, it's best to carry a concealed backup gun. A concealed knife as backup never runs out of bullets, and is a silenced weapon.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Back on topic,
I'm in favor of allowing Open Carry in Texas, because it would be nice to have the option. Right now I can carry a concealed weapon no problems, but it would be nice not to have to worry about a jacket blowing open in the wind or wearing a cover shirt on a hot day.
That said, I'd probably not OC in town, if I could help it. It freaks some people out knowing a gun is there, so I'd rather they not know. I don't want to cause them undue stress (I'm tired of worrying about WHY an inanimate object causes them undue stress, so I don't anymore), and I don't want the hassle. Outside of town, in the various state parks I frequent, OC would be the way to go.
Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If you confront someone, you might win.
If you escape, you always win."
Hello Rue,
This logic is tragically flawed. You assume success in an escape, while chastising the confrontation supporters for assuming success.
I am a big supporter of people trying to escape or de-escalate confrontations whenever doing so is less dangerous than having a confrontation.
It is easier to make this determination when you are alone. If you are with a party or persons, then escape becomes much more difficult. If we were walking down the street together, for instance, I do not think I would bolt and sprint away, leaving you to an uncertain fate. I'd be happy to cover your escape, however.
There is no logic in this. It's just how I feel.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
You should visit the "rest of the world" then.
Like Britain, or Australia.
See how well their gun control has worked.
You should visit the rest of the world too, rather than read the BS statistics that the NRA make up. I live in Australia and we have never, ever had gun ownership like the US, and now we have extremely strict gun laws. Our gun crimes per capita are no where near the US, not even in the same ball park and our murder rate, overall has been in decline for the past few decades.
Few people own guns - most would be farmers and sportsmen and women - I can say that as a city fringe dweller I know no one who owns a gun and never have even met anyone who owns a gun. I believe that our rates of violence are on a par with the rest of the western world, it's neither a paradise nor a place of acute danger in most places.
I know I feel safe in my home without a gun - I have a dog, which is about 100% way of burglar proofing your home, and I feel safe driving around, walking around in daylight. I'd feel strange about public transport at night - mainly because Ive gotten nervous as I've gotten older. I have however, travelled throughout Europe by myself and used public transport extensively, day and night and never been harrassed. Most Americans I met were armed with mace. You're a nervous bunch.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I live in Australia
So my many guesses were incorrect. But I did get you weren't from here ;)
I agree, no guns makes for a safer land, but only if the govt. is not roaming around with guns.
Historically, a dog is the best defense. I have a funny story about that I might repost...
King Tut had a dog, a greyhound, who died at the age of 7, and Tut buried him in a sarcophagus, with a letter to his dog, but the sarcophagus he made as a replica of the tomb of Anubis' dog. Anubis' tomb has never been found by us, but it was known to Tut, all we have really is the dog's tomb, on which he tells the story.
Contrary to egyptian mythology, Horus was Anubis' father, and led a military campaign to conquer/unite egypt. He kept with him a large gemstone which he may have believed to have power, as a good luck charm. He was killed on the campaign, and gave the stone to his son.
Anubis kept the stone, and when he conquered egypt, built a castle/tower/keep, in which he stored Horus' gemstone. Whenever people who sought to overthrow or thwart the union of egypt attacked the castle, Anubis and his men always knew the location of his attackers and were able to respond immediately. The egyptians began to think this was uncanny, even magical, and dubbed the stone "The Eye of Horus." The eye appears throughout western history, and even not so western. It appears as "the all seeing eye" in Scheherazade's compilation of persian folktales, written in her home of Samarkand (She was actually ruler of Persia, but not a muslim, during islamization, and she feared that the clerics would destroy the tales. Her painting of herself as prisoner is a satire of the arabian kings.) It also is on the back of our dollar bill, as the eye of the illuminati, a symbol used by the 14th c. masons who sought to free europe from the control of the roman catholic church.
This, Anubis says, is nonsense. He knew of no magic, but a dog, who he said was was the best friend a man could have, for he kept him company during the day, and safe during the night, and without the help of his dog, who could quickly find which wall or entryway was under attack and wake him and alert him to the invaders presence, the union of Egypt would never have survived.
... Anubis would later be revered as a deity, swept into the mideast pantheon, and as "Anu" under Sargon I, the ancestor of all gods, who on earth would be ruled by Enlil, last breath of Anu, or in the proto-Aramaic Ellil, or "El" for "the high one" meaning physically high, taken to be the air, the heavens. El is the high God of Israel, and is the El in its name, and refered to by name by Christ. As such, it can be said that the true word of God is "Get a Dog."
Masonsdaughter,
personally, I don't own a gun. I know people with guns, but there's no gun violence here, outside of suicides and drug-related crimes.
I have no need of protection in my home, no one possesses any will to steal. I suspect this is natural for humans given enough space, and you would find it in parts of Australia as well. I'm in NY, which you get to by going through back roads of 200 miles of uninhabited forest. No real crime there. My village has about 200 people in it. A friend of mine was killed a couple years ago in a drug conflict, about 30 miles from here. You don't find trouble here unless you go looking for it. I go to Europe often. One rule I learned is "Welcome to Europe: You will be robbed." I've run into gun violence here and in Europe, equally, though they have gun control, places like Austria and Slovakia, the govt. is not to be all that trusted with guns. The roughest place I've been is probably Hyde park, Chicago where Obama is really for all practical purposes, from. It's gotten much better there in just two years, but almost entirely because one of their own is now President of the United States, which will do a lot for a neighborhood.
Oh, and this forum is full of libertarians, I think it's not a representative sample of the population. Firefly definitely attracts people of that
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for the story re the dog. I liked it. My pup has a ferocious bark when any stranger approaches, but truth is, he'd probably lick them to death. Nevermind, having a dog is a deterrent to burglars.
I think most rural places suffer from less crime - although here, the suicide rate is higher in the country - perhaps isolation plus more access to guns.
Our cities are like cities anywhere, with their fair share of violence and crime- little, however is gun related. The change in laws had little impact because gun ownership has always been limited - we have never had the same gun culture or associated gun ownership with rights.
I've always suspected the american association of gun ownership with freedom from tyranny as a load of bullshit - okay hyperbole if I am being nice, given that your government funds and controls the largest, most sophisticated and technologically advanced army in the world. Having a hand gun, rifle or even your own personal arsenal won't mean diddly squat against that sort of force. It's always seemed like an excuse for people to own guns, because really, they like guns. They're a big boys toy = albeit a deadly one.
Firefly had a cult following in Australia, and there are few libertarians here. There's actually something for everyone in Firefly and it has always interested me how politically diverse the fanbase has been - I post a lot over at Serenity Board, but RW lacks the oomph that it used to have, so I defect over here from time to time.
Nice chatting.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As I was reading this thread, I was wondering something. There's talk about being nervous on seeing a guy openly carrying, which is probably understandable.
Would people have the same reaction to a lady with a gun strapped to her side?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Possibly not? I do think our society continues to live with sexist stereotypes.
I myself find a woman with a gun somehow sexier, for no reason I can name.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
just out of curiosity...
what are the laws in Pittsburgh like re this topic
just wondering with this, and the G20 protests going on
you have a bunch of folk packing at the protest, then the cops do something crazy.............................
we have already seen people carrying at the healthcare townhalls, but I think the G20 would be a escalation, with predictable results
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I suspect the gun freedom thing is propaganda. I also suspect that the US military is a pawn army run for international interests, and not for america, we just pay the interest on the debt that running it incurs, and get to kill and die in its wars, which never seem to serve american interests.
Yes, Americans and the world now benefit from a free South Korea, but by no means in any way that was intended: They make great little gizmos.
The Australian govt. is often sending some token force to the US efforts, but I don't think either country benefits, or is intended to. I'm not even sure that the last time our countries IIRC fought side by side in serious numbers which I think would be to liberate Papua New Guinea from Japanese control, served any purpose at all. I'm not even sure that the people are better off for it, but that's for them to decide.
But the govt. in DC is not really in any way part of the US. Politically it grants itself microstate status, giving itself independent legal authority, and is funded by a private corporation, the Federal Reserve. I don't feel any more responsible for its actions than an Iraqi would for Saddam Hussein's. I'm not even convinced that President Obama has the power to stop the war. We are really in quite a mess here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting. That's kind of what I expected.
Would you also feel less threatened, and be more likely to assume that the woman has a reason for carrying?
Don't worry, I'm not making some absurd gender nature argument, I find stereotypes about male violence, aggression, and testosterone offensive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I've always suspected the american association of gun ownership with freedom from tyranny as a load of bullshit - okay hyperbole if I am being nice, given that your government funds and controls the largest, most sophisticated and technologically advanced army in the world. Having a hand gun, rifle or even your own personal arsenal won't mean diddly squat against that sort of force."
Hello,
I doubt that any successful revolution could be staged without the support of some military assets.
That having been said, gaining the support of military assets is not entirely unrelated to those same assets being ordered to slaughter their countrymen wholesale. Such a slaughter being necessitated by the presence of armed and resisting citizenry.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I suspect the gun freedom thing is propaganda. I also suspect that the US military is a pawn army run for international interests, and not for america, we just pay the interest on the debt that running it incurs, and get to kill and die in its wars, which never seem to serve american interests.
Yes, Americans and the world now benefit from a free South Korea, but by no means in any way that was intended: They make great little gizmos.
The Australian govt. is often sending some token force to the US efforts, but I don't think either country benefits, or is intended to. I'm not even sure that the last time our countries IIRC fought side by side in serious numbers which I think would be to liberate Papua New Guinea from Japanese control, served any purpose at all. I'm not even sure that the people are better off for it, but that's for them to decide.
But the govt. in DC is not really in any way part of the US. Politically it grants itself microstate status, giving itself independent legal authority, and is funded by a private corporation, the Federal Reserve. I don't feel any more responsible for its actions than an Iraqi would for Saddam Hussein's. I'm not even convinced that President Obama has the power to stop the war. We are really in quite a mess here.
Australia sent troops to Vietnam - we actually had conscription here as well during that time, and were also involved in the Korean war. Basically where you have been, we have been, but obviously we don't have anywhere near the military force that you do.
The reason we send troops is to maintain the military alliance with the US - in the hope that if someone invades you'll remember and help out - and also as a sort of payback for your assistance to us during WW2 when the Japanese invaded.
I believe that US troops are used to protect and enhance US economic interests, first and foremost, but there is something of a 'let's save the world from tyranny' mentality about your military actions from WW2 onwards. I'm not sure that the rest of the world sees your actions in the same way.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re: Escaping a situation.
You do know that for some of us, flight isn't always an option ?
Self-Defense is, in my opinion, a whole separate topic than the carrying of weapons is, because I am of the firm opinion that if you need to deploy your weapon it is because your other defenses have failed - which CAN happen through no fault of your own, especially as people are human and imperfect, both defenders and aggressors - case in point, someone wacked out on drugs to the point of hallucination and insanity isn't exactly reasonable, for example.
But Self-Defense is, to me, all about it never, ever GETTING to that point, situational awareness, de-escalation, all the things you do to prevent a "situation" from ever developing in the first place, as sensai said, the best way to 'win' a fight is make it never have happened.
On a rare occasion, this fails, it happens, no bones about it, and on those occasions having a stronger argument close at hand isn't a bad idea, no more than a spare tire or fire extinguisher is, just in case.
The problem with this argument in the first place is that those against the idea of carrying a weapon for personal defense tend to jump right over all the things someone who does carry also does in order to PREVENT ever needing that weapon - frankly, I'd reccommend some level of situational awareness and non-contact personal defense training/conflict avoidance, de-escalation and resolution for EVERYONE, and think that were it made part of the public school curriculum, it'd significantly reduce the violence in our society, and nowhere in that *requires* a weapon save as a plan B when all else fails.
But you know WHY every time I've brought that up to the educational system it gets shot down ?
Cause the way we treat our youth, adults very most certainly do NOT want them defending themselves against OUR abuses, cause then we'd have to start treating them as human beings, persons, instead of chattel.
And it is this very vilification of self defense, at all the developing portions of their life, which leads to compliant and easy victims for the criminal element, cause once trained not to resist authority or aggression, it becomes an easy lever for criminals to exploit - especially when reinforced by both the criminalization of resisting even a corrupt or abusive member of authority, and those some authorities advising nonresistance despite it's proven adverse affect on ones chances of successfully surviving an encounter with the criminal element.
And worse, it leads to the very fear and hysteria seen here, as if the very act of touching a gun is going to turn whoever does it instantly into a raving maniac intent on shooting up the local shopping mall, which feeds the cycle of lunacy by self-reinforcing a demonstrably false belief.
That's the same kind of "magical thinking" that pretends a 'gun-free zone' or mere words on paper is somehow going to stop a bullet, a foolish complacency which removes personal responsibility and situational awareness from the equation and results in a falsely framed "debate" designed to railroad a conclusion in complete disregard of the facts.
Personal Defense has in fact almost nothing to do with the hardware you may or not be carrying, and everything to do with never NEEDING that hardware in the first place.
Let's have THAT clear, or have it in another topic, thanks.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
As I was reading this thread, I was wondering something. There's talk about being nervous on seeing a guy openly carrying, which is probably understandable.
Would people have the same reaction to a lady with a gun strapped to her side?
I wouldn't. I would most likely assume she was a police detective.
Thanks for bringing that up; now I have to ask myself why my reactions would be different.
Maybe it's because female serial or spree killers are quite rare, so I don't assume an armed woman might go postal at a moment's notice.
But it's a good question, and food for thought.
Mike
Old friend charity
Cruel twisted smile
And the smile signals emptiness
For me
Starless and Bible black
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Late, as usual. Thank you for all the wonderful responses; I'm getting further and further into sleep deprivation because I'm wearing this huge "boot"--Achilles tendonitis--and it's tough wearing it to bed and getting any sleep, what with a 70-lb--last time we checked--husky insisting on sharing the bed, despite having his own, same-sized, same elevation, padded "bed" right beside it. What can I say? So I slept in.
Okay, here we go:Quote:
Wulf, again; not true. I described a number of scenarios where a woman carrying a gun is a negative possibility, and do NOT believe any woman who buys a gun would have an equal chance against a "gangster" carrying one. You haven't addressed that once, you just respond based on the assumption that it would be a fair fight. At this point you needn't bother, you're not hearing me.
Because, you put a 110lb woman up against a 250 man... hell... the guy will win. But give the girl a gun?
Rue, bless your cotton-pickin' sweet little heart. You went on to make some of my arguments for me.Quote:
I've noticed that too, just kept going out of the interest in debating, to counter his arguments...not that it got through (tho' he was quite reasonable in making them--how's THAT for all you guys who want to make him a total jerk?). Anybody ever think to mention self-defense? Yeah, against a gun, not so hot, but if you're going to insist on that 110-lb woman v. 250-lb gangster (and MANY of them don't use guns), I maintain there ARE other options.
that's the FIRST thing you say when anyone disagrees with you about guns.
I neglected to mention I've been in very bad neighborhoods, and at night, myself. Hell, folks, I lived in EAST PALO ALTO back in the '60s very briefly, with some Hell's Angels. We had kids crawling in the windows with knives. I walked alone. Yeah, I'm 6' and never saw 110 lbs since I was about 11, but there's a LOT to be said for how you carry yourself, how much of a victim your body language says you are...and to answer the inevitable question, no, I was ALONE, none of them along to "protect" me. Jim also works on Mission Street, a bad section of SF, and I've walked and bicycled to and from there more times than I can count, without my dog. No problem, and I've had guys follow me for a bit before they decided I wasn't a viable victim.
Usually when I walk places I've not felt particularly secure, I do so with my dog. I hike with my dog (and hey, anyone remember the Trailside Killer here on our Mountain?). My dogs have always been half shephard or half husky, and now full husky. Give me a dog to PREVENT a confrontation over a gun any day.
Mike:Quote:
Of COURSE they do! America's a lost cause; the bad guys all have guns, so if there's a STRICT gun law, only bad guys carry guns. I never said I was against gun ownership, only against EVERYONE carrying guns. We have to deal with what "is", not what "should be", but that doesn't mean we have to make it worse, which I believe open carry would do.
Cities with the STRONGEST gun control laws on their books are some of the highest crime areas in the nation (DC, anyone?). Quote:
But it DOES happen, doesn't it? And three words: Cops are trained. Not only trained, supposedly well trained, and in many places given PC training, and know they lose their jobs and possibly face jail if they use them wrongly and know if they use them at ALL, there will be a serious investigation. Yet some of them still shoot people wrongly, don't they? And not even necessarily on a bad day. Your argument is fallacious.
I've never had my head blown off by a cop having a bad day - and I HAVE run into cops having bad days!Quote:
Heinlen, first off, was a science fiction writer, which should be all that needs to be said. But second, he was a mysogynistic militarist. I've heard others argue that's not true; dunno where they get the impression he was neither, given his love of inserting beautiful women and sex all
Heinlein who first said that an armed society is a polite society
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They're not my actions, of course, as we have no say or stake in our military policy. We're always given a choice between pro war candidates, when 80% of the population is anti-war <-- this is the #1 reason for America's low voter turnout, a lot of people boycott (statistically about 1/3, the remaining 15% are just lazy)
The policies though, I think are not american interests, but the interests of the international bankers who have a stranglehold over the US govt because they control the US dollar through the private corporate consortium of the Federal Reserve.
The US is in the unenviable position of not having its own currency. We have to borrow dollars from the FED, which we have no real control over. Sure, there's the ritual appointment of the FED chair by the president, but it's even less meaningful than the queen's ritual appointment of the prime minister. She has no real control, and neither do we.
That said, I can't think there's any support here, I'm not sure what the US would do if Australia were to be attacked, we did nothing for Taiwan, and it's looking like we won't do much for S. Korea. I think that might be behind Australia's new alliance with Japan I've been reading about. Is that a big story there?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I ain't overblowin nothin, seriously - go back, read the thread from start and look real careful at the general attitude directed at the mere thought of folk openly carrying, complete with various unprovable assumptions about the attitudes and character of anyone who WOULD strap one on openly.
Even more bothersome is the attitude that blinds folk - if you consider another person to be suspicious simply because they're openly packing - would you not have considered them suspicious otherwise ?
The tools ain't dangerous, people are.
As far as OPEN carry goes, I'm quite ambivalent about it, although I am of the firm opinion that a decent training course should be required by the manufacturers and distributors as a condition of purchase, which is a far better method than putting that kind of thing into the hands of a Government which has proven to be utterly untrustworthy in handling it.
I did live for a short while in a place in Texas that was open carry and my CCW didn't apply, but personally I don't like carrying the firepower right up front like that, so as a mostly smartass gesture I open-carried an 1830's style artillery sword, which was never drawn in anger or defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_1832_Foot_Artillery_Sword
Only even had one semi-serious threat by some wannabe thug who asked me what I'd do if he pulled a gun on me, to which my response was "probably lop your hand off before you got it pointed at me", this being completely facetious as by the time we got to that point of conversation the girl I was with was behind him.
Allies are a far better defense than tools, though tools do have their place.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The policies though, I think are not american interests, but the interests of the international bankers who have a stranglehold over the US govt because they control the US dollar through the private corporate consortium of the Federal Reserve.
The US is in the unenviable position of not having its own currency. We have to borrow dollars from the FED, which we have no real control over. Sure, there's the ritual appointment of the FED chair by the president, but it's even less meaningful than the queen's ritual appointment of the prime minister. She has no real control, and neither do we.
I still think that the US doesn't generally go to war unless there is some resource generally worth fighting over. It was the oil of course in the case of Iraq.
Re; the Queen's powers shouldn't be underestimated. We had a Prime Minister removed by her representative once.
Quote:
That said, I can't think there's any support here, I'm not sure what the US would do if Australia were to be attacked, we did nothing for Taiwan, and it's looking like we won't do much for S. Korea. I think that might be behind Australia's new alliance with Japan I've been reading about. Is that a big story there?
I'm pretty sure the only time we'd be attacked was if something big was going on in the world war arena - like last time - in which case the US might come to our aid if it was in their strategic interests (as it was last time). People like my father who remember the war did feel like there was a huge debt to repay the US - (otherwise we'd all be speaking Japanese) especially since they was a sense we'd been sold down the river by the British, but I think by Iraq even his generation was tiring of it.
Australia's currently looking more towards the China trade alliance - our PM speaks fluent Mandarin. I think we need to be very, very careful - they are not a democracy, they do not play by the rules - their government is secretive and vicious, and the potential to be very very powerful. More than being militarily invaded, I think more likely we'll wake up one day with China having bought half our land, and owning most of our resources.
Back to the topic: I find the idea of open carry astonishing and a little ridiculous - I mean how dangerous is your country? You make it sound like downtown Bagdad.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Back to the topic: I find the idea of open carry astonishing and a little ridiculous - I mean how dangerous is your country? You make it sound like downtown Bagdad.
Depends on where - some parts of Baltimore or Detroit, say... friday night on a full moon?
MORE dangerous than downtown Baghdad - while you're not likely to catch any military grade ordinance, there's a damn lot of small stuff flying around.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I still think that the US doesn't generally go to war unless there is some resource generally worth fighting over. It was the oil of course in the case of Iraq.
Huh, you have more faith in us than I do ;)
Quote:
Re; the Queen's powers shouldn't be underestimated. We had a Prime Minister removed by her representative once.
We have some rampant conspiracy theories about this one. I just meant that the queen isn't really going to veto Cameron's appointment when he gets elected, just like Obama didn't veto Bernanke, but the board of directors of the Federal Reserve, a private corporation, themselves all bankers and not all americans, elected Bernanke in a board meeting. Then Obama nominated him. That last part was a formality, not a real power. The FED is independent of DC, but the reverse is not also true, neither has much to do with the US, except that they rule us, with a well cloaked not yet iron fist.
Quote:
I'm pretty sure the only time we'd be attacked was if something big was going on in the world war arena - like last time - in which case the US might come to our aid if it was in their strategic interests (as it was last time). People like my father who remember the war did feel like there was a huge debt to repay the US - (otherwise we'd all be speaking Japanese) especially since they was a sense we'd been sold down the river by the British, but I think by Iraq even his generation was tiring of it.
Hmm, you're govt. did enter into an alliance with Japan quite recently, it was big news here. There was some quote to the effect that "The US could not be trusted to intervene in times of crisis any more" I don't remember who specifically said it, but it certainly made headlines here. I thought it was totally fair too. I think after our negligence in Taiwan and Korea, our intervention is in doubt. In a WWIII, yes, I'd agree, that would be the situation, a united Islamic force against a western one, Indonesia could represent a threat to Australia in such a situation. They US might be of assistance there, since we seem to go to war against muslims a lot.
Quote:
Australia's currently looking more towards the China trade alliance - our PM speaks fluent Mandarin. I think we need to be very, very careful - they are not a democracy, they do not play by the rules - their government is secretive and vicious, and the potential to be very very powerful. More than being militarily invaded, I think more likely we'll wake up one day with China having bought half our land, and owning most of our resources.
The alliance with Japan covered here was strictly military, Australians in Japan, the Japanese in Australia, exchange of military technology. Made sense to us of course. I think it's safe to say that Americans probably hold Japan in a higher regard than any other nation, at least in the top ten, top five, are there any dissenters except for Hero? I think Hero wants to nuke Japan, but outside of that, I think the US is united, and has been since the 1850s on this with the one exception of the madness of US and Japanese imperialism, I don't think either of us acted admirably. I'm somewhat pleasantly surprised that anyone else things so
Quote:
Back to the topic: I find the idea of open carry astonishing and a little ridiculous - I mean how dangerous is your country? You make it sound like downtown Bagdad.
At times, in places, actually, it's pretty bad, but I don't think that open carry helps, I think it hinders. America is just a vast varied empire, we share a language and basic culture, but radically different social structures. Australia, I know, is just as big, and less populated, there's something about the US that's hidden right under the surface. I always feel like we're one wrong move away from breaking into 50 separate countries. Some of the old tensions are pretty strong too, more than the race thing. The north-south thing, that's real. The east coast west coast thing, that's just sibling rivalry. NY city vs. Upstate NY, that's two different pla
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:/
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Hmm, you're govt. did enter into an alliance with Japan quite recently, it was big news here. There was some quote to the effect that "The US could not be trusted to intervene in times of crisis any more" I don't remember who specifically said it, but it certainly made headlines here.
I'm surprised that anything that happens here made headlines in the US. Surprisingly, it wasn't big news here. Or maybe because it was about that bastard Howard, our former PM, I tuned it out.
Quote:
I thought it was totally fair too. I think after our negligence in Taiwan and Korea, our intervention is in doubt. In a WWIII, yes, I'd agree, that would be the situation, a united Islamic force against a western one, Indonesia could represent a threat to Australia in such a situation. They US might be of assistance there, since we seem to go to war against muslims a lot.
Well again - if it was in US interests - you'd probably help out. Fair enough as well, really. Indonesia is considered to be the only potential threat, given their population size vs ours - but Australia is currently on good terms with them - Their military is usually kept busy sorting out their own people. Their government seems pretty pissed off about the islamic extremists as much as anyone, they don't do much good for much needed business investment and tourism.
Quote:
At times, in places, actually, it's pretty bad, but I don't think that open carry helps, I think it hinders. America is just a vast varied empire, we share a language and basic culture, but radically different social structures. Australia, I know, is just as big, and less populated, there's something about the US that's hidden right under the surface. I always feel like we're one wrong move away from breaking into 50 separate countries. Some of the old tensions are pretty strong too, more than the race thing. The north-south thing, that's real. The east coast west coast thing, that's just sibling rivalry. NY city vs. Upstate NY, that's two different planets ;) I'm sure you have that where you are as well.
We have differences, but they're not as big as in the US, apparently. reading posts from americans on politics, immigration and religion, it's clear that there are some huge, gaping ideological divisions over there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Heinlen, first off, was a science fiction writer, which should be all that needs to be said. But second, he was a mysogynistic militarist. I've heard others argue that's not true; dunno where they get the impression he was neither, given his love of inserting beautiful women and sex all over the place and his constant harping on militaristic tactics. That's my opinion, and I've read everything he ever wrote (tho' many years ago)."
Hello,
At the risk of sounding sexist, I will dare to offer a blanket statement here: Most men enjoy entertainment involving beautiful women, sex, and military action. None of these things indicts the writer.
I admire Heinlein because his women tended to be strong, intelligent, and independent minded.
I also admire him because he had a strong belief in personal freedom and personal responsibility.
His works were almost universally a tool to examine society by pulling it apart and studying its pieces. Frequently after doing so, he would advocate for whatever he perceived to be a 'better way.'
In short, the man did what the best sci-fi writers can ever hope to do. He entertained and enlightened via the medium of his craft.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ummm... Niki? I don't remember ANYONE in this thread advocating that EVERYONE should be openly carrying weapons. The only one who's mentioned that eventuality is you.
I *DID* point out that there are places where every household is required by city ordinance to have a firearm, and that crime is generally far lower in those places, but that's a far, far cry from "everybody must be armed at all times".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Heinlen, first off, was a science fiction writer, which should be all that needs to be said.
Nik, um, this is a sci-fi forum. Would be sorta like attacking Reagan at the republican national convention. Furthermore, people here possibly knew Heinlein, I know lots of people who knew him, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if someone here did. I once made the mistake of criticizing Clinton to someone who knew him, I know someone else here in town who knows him as well, which is just another way of saying "Audience." jes try to bear it in mind.
Second, Heinlein was a politician, life long. He started working for Upton Sinclair, and his journey from socialism to conservatism is intersting, but his writings are always insightful. You will not win many arguments by attacking him, in any venue.
MD,
Quote:
I'm surprised that anything that happens here made headlines in the US. Surprisingly, it wasn't big news here. Or maybe because it was about that bastard Howard, our former PM, I tuned it out.
Yeah, lots of stuff, down to the Solomon Islands conflict. East Timor was huge news over here.
Quote:
Well again - if it was in US interests - you'd probably help out. Fair enough as well, really. Indonesia is considered to be the only potential threat, given their population size vs ours - but Australia is currently on good terms with them - Their military is usually kept busy sorting out their own people. Their government seems pretty pissed off about the islamic extremists as much as anyone, they don't do much good for much needed business investment and tourism.
I've known some indonesians might take issue with the image of 'their people' but I know what you mean. Jakarta really inherited an empire from the Dutch, many peoples of which would not care to be part of the union, especially given the recent history, I would expect you do see a fair number fleeing the govt, but no, I wouldn't expect to see an invasion of Australia under any normal circumstances. The only was I could see it happening is if they had an arms supplier, and a war had the effect of uniting the people in an Orwellian fashion.
My expectation would be that the union of indonesia would fall apart under any sign of weakness. People flock to islamic extremism where it seems like the lesser of two evils, and the only way to quell it is to not let that situation develop. Indonesia's civil war, militant crackdowns and economic collapse were big news here too.
Quote:
We have differences, but they're not as big as in the US, apparently. reading posts from americans on politics, immigration and religion, it's clear that there are some huge, gaping ideological divisions over there.
There are huge divisions, but our political parties are pretty much identical. There's not a lot of difference between Obama and Reagan, who he considers his hero, nor was there much difference between Bush and Clinton.
I do worry that there are too many people in the Clinton govt, including the Clintons, in the Obama govt, but I do NOT think that this is Obama's choice. It's almost a coup attempt by the Clintons. The whole situation is just unfortunate... If this country collapses, I'll blame the Bushes and Clintons rather than Obama, unless he does something colossally stupid.
But yes, the division among the people is pretty extreme. They'd probably range from establishing a socialist state to completely abolishing the govt. There are a few supporters of the war here, but it's not a major source of contention. Alas, there is little *opposition* to the war within govt., which is a symptom of the corruption.
Our "Federal Reserve" banking system has been a principle political topic for the last couple of years, as our economy collapses.
People have generally a very favorable view of Australia, which politically everyone would probably agree that we consider "very politically conservative." Australians are very nice, and travel a lot, and that helps the international image. Rupert Murdoch might be your sole detract
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I saw some of the Firefly episodes on television before the series was cancelled. I saw the remainder of the episodes after cancellation via internet download. Finally, I purchased the DVD when it came out.
Farscape never appealed to me deeply, and I'm not sure I could articulate why.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's a different kind of experience. The world and creatures are much more rich, if it were a storyline on paper, it wouldn't work as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's a different kind of experience. The world and creatures are much more rich, if it were a storyline on paper, it wouldn't work as well.
I was catching Farscape for a while, but they quit showing it on my local affiliate. I kinda loved it; the acting was pretty horrific, but the ideas - especially Moia, the living ship - were pretty damned fantastic.
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
My expectation would be that the union of indonesia would fall apart under any sign of weakness. People flock to islamic extremism where it seems like the lesser of two evils, and the only way to quell it is to not let that situation develop. Indonesia's civil war, militant crackdowns and economic collapse were big news here too.
That's what keeps their military busy!
Quote:
People have generally a very favorable view of Australia, which politically everyone would probably agree that we consider "very politically conservative."
LOL> Actually if the US knew more about Australia, they'd probably consider us pretty socialist. We did have lots of nationalised industry and services until about 20 years ago, when the governments been selling them off bit by bit. Gotta tow the IMF line, don't you know. But we still have a strong public health and welfare system and a raft of laws that would have libertarians spinning on their heads. The current government is a Labor Government, allegedly left of centre.
We were perceived as politically conservative because our last PM, Howard climbed so far up Bush's a*** that it's probably that he still holidays there from time time. He was one of the most conservative PM's in our history.
When I read forums where a lot of Americans post, the right views feel extreme to me, very extreme. Most wouldn't get much air play here - for example, pretty much everyone supports some form of public health - it's a puzzle to us why the US is so reistant.
Quote:
Australians are very nice, and travel a lot, and that helps the international image.
Ah ha. Perhaps a stereotyped image, is it racism when they are favourable.
Personally I find a lot of Australians abroad terribly objectional - bit of a cultural cringe thing. Currently we have terrible press in India for being a racist country because of a so called spate of attacks on Indians - so you know, it varies. Quote:
Rupert Murdoch might be your sole detractor :) Honestly, I don't think Murdoch is all that bad, I know it says a lot about the US press to say "At least he has some journalistic integrity." If you take that at face value, you know how "fair and balanced" the rest of the US press is. Things are changing as we get more of our news online, but not the media, our media is still "More corrupt than FOX" but people online get better information. The only snag is that we are become *more* polarized because people go to information sites that agree with them.
Most of us were pretty happy that you decided to adopt him - because we sure as hell don't want him.
Quote:
Have you seen Farscape?
I didn't watch it religiously - but I enjoyed bits and pieces of it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MD
I just wrote a very long post, and it was deleted :(
Yes, we meet a lot of Australians, esp. those of us who travel (you know us because we can pronounce the name of your country) In spite of the fact that we are bombarded by australian media, not just fox, but that fox Nicole Kidman, and Mel Gibson who was actually born only 15 miles from my house, there are still americans who say "Austraylia"
Our country is far more socialist than you realize:
We have nationalized:
Banks
Insurance
General Motors
But before that
All Passenger Railways (except some inner cities)
the postal system
Schools
Most universities
veterans hospitals, but all hospitals are under the AMA, in fact, everything is under some regulatory agency or other, you can't do anything without a stamp of approval from big brother.
Part of the resistance to national healthcare is that we have state healthcare which works find and the national federal govt. screws everything up.
This was before a long rant that ended in me saying I thought there was really very little reason to have a federal govt. at all and if it came to a vote...
So, I proposed this vote, so here goes
I propose that we dissolve the federal govt of the United states of American and leave in its place 50 independent nations under an American Union similar to the EU, and bound to the US constitution but no other law but what the states make, with the following agreements
1. We dissolve congress, the supreme court, and the executive. Obama can remain as our representative to the world. We can still elect a different one.
2. The US military should be remanded back to the states national guards, replacing a single military with an alliance of mutual protection similar to Europe's NATO
3. No nations could go to war without the consent of the other member states. Any out of line state would have to fear the other 49.
4. Anyone could vote themselves in or out of the alignment by their own democratically elected legislature, Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa and Saipan are all free to join of course, bound by their own constitutions.
5. Trade and travel between states would remain unfettered, but states would have the power to levy tariffs on imported goods, as per the constitution.
6. All income taxes would be abolished as per the constitution, State taxes would be per their own constitutions
7. The Federal reserve system would be abolished, along with it, the national debt, which would be the sole responsibility of the member banks of the federal reserve who could easily pay it themselves.
8. In addition to the common currency, the US dollar, each state would be able to issue its own currency, such as the Ohio Dollar, and at any point, if it seemed that there was a weakness in a local or national currency, these could be separated by a vote of the local state, or a judgment of all states against one states currency.
9. The would be no foreign wars outside of those which are with the consent of all states sending troops and at the invitation of the local allied govt. calling on America for defense. Any unilateral action without invitation or provocation would be reason for dismissal from the union.
10. States would be free to make their own laws as long as those are in accordance with the US constitution, which does not ban the legalization of bud.
11. There would be no border checks or restrictions on travel or relocation, as per the EU, but people should be apprised of the fact that bud may not be legal in states they travel to, and they may be deported back to their home state.
12. All federal agencies would be broken up by state or dissolves including but not limited to the CIA, FBI, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, FEMA, etc.
13. All states would have the power to levy tariffs on any foreign imports, to help stablize their economies and protect local industry.
14. Universal agreements and accords would be signed to keep states from acting to the detriment of others as has been done in Europe, such as wildlife and environmental accords
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh
The other part of my long post was about Farscape.
It's great for the worlds and creatures, visually, and the main character romance is no worse than Buffy-Angel, it's just difficult.
The first season is a bit of a trudge, weak, but the show is a lot of fun, and should be taken in the spirit of Dr. Who.
Actually, the premise is derived directly from a BBC show "Blake's Seven" which was weak on acting and budget, but a very refreshing break from star trek and star wars because here was an escaped prison ship filled with characters with no moral compass whatsoever.
And that's what Farscape is, it's the '90s version of the same story, with just much better special effects, and some of the actors are quite good. Browder always falls flat for me, same on SG-1. But this is definitely worth watching. It's easily better than 90% of the stuff recommended to me on this board. It's much like Buffy in that "it's a lot of fun, and the through story is not as solid as the individual episodes."
People who liked this show also like BSG SG-1 Firefly T:SCC Dr Who Babylon 5, Lexx ;). That said, I love Lexx, Farscape is a better show.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My worry would be that shrugging off a federal gov't and becoming an Alliance of nationstates, while possibly freeing us from foreign war, might invite not-so-foreign war. Should Mexico get uppity and decide they want the Southwest back, these independent nation-states would have to fight together. I foresee severe unity of command issues, not to mention rows about troop committment from the uninvolved states. Right now, such a fragmented system works for the EU and NATO, but neither have faced large- scale combat on their own soil.
This is not the biggest problem with this concept, but rather the one that jumped out most clearly at me.
Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I loved B5, BSG. I drooled at the ladies of LEXX, but consider the show to have been largely worthless. Perhaps it would have had slightly more merit on HBO or Showtime. Don't like Stargate anything much, or Andromeda, and sadly, though many love it, I never gelled with Farscape.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NATO works. If it didn't, Russia would have conquered the US a long time ago, and Russia is far more up to the task than Mexico. I think that fear is what has kept us beholden to our current overloards for so long, but think it's not well founded.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NATO, and a metric ass-ton of nuclear missiles worked. Do you really think a few Leo's Challengers and Abrams on the ground in the Fulda Gap is what held back Ivan? (assuming Ivan ever seriously considered offensive action in W. Europe to begin with).
Which brings up another good question. What WOULD we do with that metric ass-ton of nukes we still have lying around?
Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We tried that once. It was called the Articles of Confederation and all it accomplished was the different states constantly snipping at each other and nothing getting done. Then we decided we needed something different, the Constitution.
It's not perfect and I'm glad it takes a lot to amend it but it's the best we have.
I personally don't support open carry and NC has concealed carry by permit. You have to attend a training course and a records search of both criminal and mental health records are done.
I'm a notary and I end up processing some of the paperwork because a notarized signature is required for the record searches.
It seems to me that lately more women are getting concealed carry permits. Most of the time it's both husband and wife, especially if they operate a business where they have to transport lots of cash.
I recently did one for a couple that live in a rural area. They were the victims of an attempted home invasion by druggies(likely meth addicts-a big problem here) And the wife was home alone at the time. Fortunately they had a strong lock and all they had was a badly damaged door.
It made them realize that it would take the sheriff at least 10-15 minutes to get to their house once a 911 call was made. So they both got concealed carry permits.
Personally I agree with the philosophy that the best defense is situational awareness, which I get a lot of practice being a bank employee and my desk is smack in the middle of the lobby, just feet from the teller line.
Keep out of trouble if you can, run away if you can, talk your way out of it if you can and as a last resort, resist with all your might. The same philosophy taught at my daughter's Tae Kwon Do classes when she took them.
I don't think the US will ever have the restrictions that Australia and Great Britain have. For one thing, the criminals already have the guns and restrictions would only hurt those that legally possess guns. Criminals will get them illegally or not turn them in.
I would like to see gun safety as an optional course in high school. I was taught respect for firearms by a Grandfather and Dad that were avid hunters. Most young people these days have no exposure to guns and have no idea how lethal they are and the damage that they can do or how to be around them safely.
http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The EU is a bureaucratic nightmare, from all accounts - it's just another layer of government - with elected reps and laws - the whole lot. I don't know if there would be in any advantage in swapping what you've got for what they have.
I think by removing fed government and the constitution you could lose a lot of your power on the world arena and be open to warring between states and tyrannical governments - even at state level. I've read far too much speculative fiction for it too feel like a good idea.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT Point of correction
Quote:The AMA is a PRIVATE organization. It does not control hospitals. That is done by the Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation, which is ALSO private organization. The (confusingly-named) "State Medical Boards", which have to do with licensing doctors to practice in any particular state, are also private.
but all hospitals are under the AMA:
All of these organizations are private entities. They are not funded or run by any government entity, state. local or federal.
www.ama-assn.org
www.fsmb.org/
www.jointcommission.org
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
One might surmise that once the government gives power to a private institution, such that it can determine who does business and who doesn't, then that institution becomes part of the government, and thus no longer merely a private enterprise.
In fact, I'd suppose it becomes the worst of both worlds. Government power and private self-interestedness.
A match made in hell.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
One might surmise that once the government gives power to a private institution, such that it can determine who does business and who doesn't, then that institution becomes part of the government, and thus no longer merely a private enterprise.
In fact, I'd suppose it becomes the worst of both worlds. Government power and private self-interestedness.
A match made in hell.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
That ALMOST sounds like a rant against the government "privatizing" and using contractors, since giving contracts to people like Blackwater (now Xe, an allegedly inert gas) would be tantamount to giving them "government authority"...
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MD,
Oh, the EU is all kinds of nightmare: It's essentially a self appointed dictatorship. I just meant keeping the agreements they have, here, and losing the imperial federal govt.
The thing is, the EU is headed from independent states towards an empire, quite intentionally.
The US is already an empire, and I think we should scale back. Schools, hospitals, roads, etc. the things which "govt." takes care of are taken care of by the state govts. which are self supporting. Yes, they get aid from the federal govt, but that aid amounts to about 1/4 of what they PAY IN to the federal govt.
The thing is, New York would be a nation of 17 million with a GDP of over a trillion, it would be a first world nation. All of our economic problems come from us being part of the union. This is true as far as I can tell for every state except for Texas.
But the freedom of movement and trade laws, universal agreements on the environment and defense, we could keep those without keeping a federal govt. The states of the US are completely self sustaining, and need nothing from Washington, all we get is taxes, orders, wars, and debt.
I've lived here a long time, I don't think a civil war is a possibility, I think it's pure fantasy. Besides, I said nothing about getting rid of the constitution.
Sig,
In name only. Reality: the AMA is the biggest labor union ever. It's the major obstacle to efficient and effective medical care.
Mike,
Xenon tetrafluoride
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Well, it would be an equal concept if Congress was contracting Blackwater to make declarations of war on its behalf.
(Cue Military Industrial Complex rants here)
'Privatizing' regulatory agencies is a bad idea, since they have the singular incentive of regulating themselves into a monopoly and adjusting standards not for the public good, but for the good of themselves.
It's the difference between contracting someone to take orders, and contracting someone to give orders. One is safer than the other.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I would like to see gun safety as an optional course in high school. I was taught respect for firearms by a Grandfather and Dad that were avid hunters. Most young people these days have no exposure to guns and have no idea how lethal they are and the damage that they can do or how to be around them safely.
Optional heck, oughta be part of the curriculum under social studies, starting with the muskets with which we won independence, complete with demonstration of loading and operation (this always draws good interest if well done by a period actor) up to and including the M4 Rifle used by our current military being demonstrated by them as well, complete with related safety instruction.
Whether we wish to admit it or not, firearms are a significant part of our history and heritage, and it's only natural that we should include them and then use the opportunity to teach proper safe handling and respect of them instead of fear, which leads to the forbidden fruit temptation, same way it does with sex when we play peek-a-boo with that.
Most of these kids today get their ideas about firearms from the street, or hollywood, neither of which is a good instructor, and one of my oldest friends lost his roomie last year due to said roomies lack of proper training, a pointless and shameful loss caused in part by his fear of being caught having a weapon, which is as far as Baltimore police are concerned, or at least act, a far greater crime than murder... grrr.
So he did not seek training or competence, and it indirectly killed him.
Comes to it, shop class teaches you how to safely use and operate some pretty dangerous equipment you'll probably never own yourself - and being that I see firearms as a tool, I really don't see the difference, or the reason for the panicked screaming against it such a suggestion tends to draw, save that those doing the howling seem to have this rabid fear of people able to defend themselves...
And that causes ME to look at their intentions with horrified suspicion.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ANTHONY- One might surmise, but one would be wrong. Did you look into any of the links I provided???
Quote:They BILL for their services, and also receive funding from non-profits for special studies.
Joint Commission: Founded initially in 1917 as the American College of Surgeons by Dr Franklin Martin. In 1951 The American College of Physicians (ACP), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the American Medical Association (AMA), and the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) join with the ACS to create the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH), an independent, not-for-profit organization whose primary purpose is to provide voluntary accreditation.
Quote:Where the government connection comes in is that Medicare accepts Joint Commission, DNVHC Inc, and the National Committee on Quality Assurance accreditation as meeting Medicare standards; in other words, accredited institutions are able to bill Medicare for health services.
Also, there are in fact other American-based healthcare accreditation organizations working within the U.S., all of which are completely separate to the Joint Commission. These include the American Osteopathic Association, or AOA, Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (HFAP), Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF), Community Health Accreditation Program (CHAP), the Accreditation Commission for Health Care, Inc. (ACHC), Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC), the "Exemplary Provider Program" of The Compliance Team and the Healthcare Quality Association on Accreditation (HQAA), who are recognised in the state of Ohio. HFAP is older than the Joint Commission, having been in operation since 1945. On September 26, 2008 the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) granted deeming authority for hospitals to DNV Healthcare Inc (DNVHC, Inc.) DNVHC is an operating company of Det Norske Veritas (DNV), an international company that has been operating in the U.S. since 1898.
Working in a laboratory, and having organized an approval program myself, I'm familiar with MANY private organizations (A2LA, UL, Green Seal, ASTM) which provide accreditation services. There is nothing strange, unusual, or nefarious about the concept; different accreditations are available for different (mostly commercial) purposes- with different acceptances by government entities. (often, no interaction at all)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Signy,
I was under the sore misconception that one could not practice medicine or provide health care services without the permission of those institutions.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem, I still disagree that there's been any "hysteria" shown in this thread. For myself,Quote:
doesn't hold. In this day and age, someone I see carrying a gun openly WHERE I LIVE would be suspicious. There's no reason to carry a gun openly except to make a statement. In a dangerous area, I'd feel otherwise, in fact I might well accept that showing one is carrying a gun is a good deterrent. But those places are few, given all of America. That was my point.
if you consider another person to be suspicious simply because they're openly packing - would you not have considered them suspicious otherwise ?
Anthony: My remarks about Heinlen are based solely on his books, all of which I've read. And yes, it's sexist--but also true--that men like books with sexy women and war. Nonetheless, how many excellent sci fi books are written without sexy women? War, yes, but it's kind of intrinsic to sci fi that most of the books will be about conflict of one kind or another.
DT, I expressed an opinion, again, based on his books. I expressed a SUBJECTIVE opinion, and my gosh, if someone or other hasn't expressed a negative opinion of EVERYONE in politics (which is what RWE forum is about), well...they have. Some don't like it, some agree; end of story. I didn't know Heinlen was involved in politics, that makes him more interesting to me. But his use of women and battle techniques, etc., came across as mysogynistic and militaristic TO ME. End of story.
As to Heinlen, as I said, all I know is what he writes, and most of his books had sexy women in them. As to their being strong and independent--bearing in mind it's been decades since I formed my opinion on his writings--most of his women seemed to me to be ancillary characters supportive of the main, mail, protagonist.
Granted Quote:
I repeat: How many did it without resorting to lots and lots of sexy women? It's an indication of a mentality, TO ME.
In short, the man did what the best sci-fi writers can ever hope to do. He entertained and enlightened via the medium of his craft.
Mike, given the topic was open carry, I assumed the discussion was about everyone's right to carry openly. Ergo: everyone, anyone, however many/few, 'kay?
Ago, I agreeQuote:
that this is part of the reason I don't believe in separate states. Another part is that if each state were separate, some would suffer FAR more than others. Here in CA we've got it good--so we're "givers" to the government. Poorer states are the "takers"...it makes things more even. The possibility of in-state fighting would be increased by divvying them up, as a poorer state might resent a wealthier state next door. There are so MANY other differences in our country (which I agree in theory, is too big to be one country), I don't think it would improve things if we were separate "countries" as opposed to a lot of states gathered together.
My worry would be that shrugging off a federal gov't and becoming an Alliance of nationstates, while possibly freeing us from foreign war, might invite not-so-foreign war.
Look at Europe; that's my best answer. Sure, presently it's pretty peaceful, but look at its past. I guess "look at Asia" would be a more current example, or the Middle East, probably the best. Many small states makes for more lack of unity than one big one.
All I can say to your concept, DT, is that I think it would fail miserably. I know you're hung up on "no federal government" and I understand your complaints about having one, but I think you're dead wrong, and there are so many arguments against each of your points that I'd go on forever if I tried to debate each individually. So let's agree to disagree; I think a central government is imperative to America's survival; you don't. I agree with NCB: Quote:
We tried that once. It was called the Articles of Confederation and all it accomplished was the different states constantly snipping at each other and nothing getting done. Then we decided we needed something different, the Constitu
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
just wanted to bump this
" just out of curiosity...
what are the laws in Pittsburgh like re this topic
just wondering with this, and the G20 protests going on
you have a bunch of folk packing at the protest, then the cops do something crazy.............................
we have already seen people carrying at the healthcare townhalls, but I think the G20 would be a escalation, with predictable results "
if a state has a open carry law, should there be exceptions in cases where the possibility of problems such as this would occur ?
If not then what are the advantages ?
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well we can always just go along to get along.
Ignore whats going on, and hope it goes away.
*sigh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
just wanted to bump this
" just out of curiosity...
what are the laws in Pittsburgh like re this topic
just wondering with this, and the G20 protests going on
you have a bunch of folk packing at the protest, then the cops do something crazy.............................
we have already seen people carrying at the healthcare townhalls, but I think the G20 would be a escalation, with predictable results "
if a state has a open carry law, should there be exceptions in cases where the possibility of problems such as this would occur ?
If not then what are the advantages ?
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
I'm curious about this, too. My bet is that the same folks who would argue that you MUST let people carry at the Town Hall meetings would be dead set AGAINST people carrying at the G20 protests, even if all the legalities involved were identical.
And while people like PirateCat applaud using sound cannons and pain beams on "hippies" at G20, I doubt he'd feel the same about those very weapons turned against his tea-bagging buddies at the town hall.
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My question is... why are we allowing military grade weaponry to be used against our own people?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Mike, given the topic was open carry, I assumed the discussion was about everyone's right to carry openly. Ergo: everyone, anyone, however many/few, 'kay?
It seemed that you were making a connection between "everyone" being ALLOWED to open-carry, and that equating to everyone actuallly DOING IT. That's a false equivalence. It's like saying that right now, because "everyone" (and I'll use that loosely, since it really doesn't apply under current U.S. laws) CAN legally own a firearm, that everyone DOES own one. It's demonstrably false.
It's as false as the gun-rights peoples' claims that if you try to put ANY conditions on gun ownership, you're trying to outlaw and seize EVERYONE'S guns. There already ARE conditions in place where you don't have the legal right to own a gun, but it's hardly true that NOBODY has the right.
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
My question is... why are we allowing military grade weaponry to be used against our own people?
And that's a damned good question, too. But rather than try to meet that weaponry with a deer rifle and a molotov cocktail, try meeting it with a high-def video camera and a satellite uplink that streams it out LIVE on the internet. The very best weapon against tyranny is information.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike: agreed. But given, I repeat, that the entire discussion went on until "everyone" was brought up, I think my point is valid.
And no, I ws NOT arguing that everyone SHOULD carry openly; I was arguing that if everyone COULD, that left the potential open for those whould SHOULDN'T be allowed to carry a gun around openly would be among them. So "everyone" includes "anyone"...do you see the correlation?
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Too many who "shouldn't" already do.
Im arguing that *I* have the right to backstop against them.
Btw... anyone here ever made a zip-gun?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Guru]
That makes me know that we we we we're doin
We had the right idea in the beginning
And and we just need to maintain our focus and elevate
We what we do we update our formulas
We have certain formulas but we update em (oh right)
with the times and everything y'know
So y'know the rhyme style is elevated
The style of beats is elevated but it's still Guru and Premier
And it's always a message involved
"The real... hip-hop"
"MCing, and DJing.. from your own mind, ya know?"
"I, I guess right now we should start the show"
[Guru]
Who's the suspicious character strapped with the sounds profound
Similar to rounds spit by Derringers
You're in the Terrordome like my man Chuck D said
It's time to dethrone you clones, and all you knuckleheads
Cause MC's have used up extended warranties
While real MC's and DJ's are a minority
But right about now, I use my authority
Cause I'm like the Wizard and you look lost like Dorothy
The horror be when I return for my real people
Words that split wigs hittin like some double Desert Eagles
Sportin caps pulled low, and baggy slacks
Subtractin all the rappers who lack, over Premier's tracks
Severe facts have brought this rap game to near collapse
So as I have in the past, I will bash
Droppin lyrics that be hotter than sex and candlewax
And one-dimensional MC's can't handle that
While the world's revolvin, on it's axis
I come with mad love and plus the illest warlike tactics
The wilderness is filled with this; so many people
searching for false lift, I'm here with the skills you've missed
The rejected stone is now the cornerstone
Sort of like the master builder when I make my way home
You know my steez...
"You know my steez" --> Method Man
"Let em know, do your thing God" "Keep it live"
"To the beat y'all" --> Flavor Flav
The beat is sinister, Primo makes you relax
I'm like the minister, when I be lacin the wax
I be bringin salvation through the way that I rap
And you know, and I know, I'm nice like that
Work through worldly problems, I got the healing power
When the mic's within my reach, I'm feelin more power
Stealing at least three minutes of every rap radio hour
It's often easier for one, to give advice
Than it is for a person to run one's own life
That's why I can't be caught up in all the hype
I keep my soul tight and let these lines takes flight
The apparatus gets blessed, and suckers get put to rest
No more of the unpure I got the cure for this mess
The wackness is spreadin like the plague
MC's lucked up and got paid but still can't make the fuckin grade
How many times are wannabe's gonna lie?
Yo they must wanna fry, they can't touch the knowledge I personify
I travel through the darkness carrying my torch
The illest soldier, when I'm holding down the fort
("You know my steez" --> Method Man)
You know my steez...
"Let em know, do your thing God" "Keep it live"
"You know my steez" --> Method Man
*repeat 4X with very last line modified as follows*
"The mic..."
On the microphone you know that I'm one of the best yet
Some punks, ain't paid all of their debts yet
Tryin to be fly, ridin high on the jet-set
With juvenile rhymes makin fake-ass death threats
Big deal, like En Vogue, here's something you can feel
Styles more tangible, and image more real
For some time now, I've held the scrolls and manuscripts
When it's time to go all out you be like, "Damn he flipped"
Now I'm sick, fed up with the bullshit
Got the lyrical full clip, giving you a verbal asswhip
Don't trip it's the gifted prolific one
Known as Bald Head Slick -- why is the press all on my di-dick?
My style be wilder, than a kamikaze pilot
Don't try it, I'm about to start more than a friggin riot
Styles unsurpassable, and nuccas that's suckas, yo
Them motherfuckers are harrassable
For I be speaking from my parables and carry you beyond
The mic's either a magic wand
Or it gets tragic like the havoc of a nuclear bomb
Then I grab your palm, no pulse you're gone
And if you thought we'd lose our ni
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
In this day and age, someone I see carrying a gun openly WHERE I LIVE would be suspicious.
I don't comprehend that, I mean, I understand what you're trying to say - but it's never going to click in my head, it just comes so sideways to my thought process it just comes across as something like a divide-by-zero error.
I'd think no more of someone openly carrying a pistol as I would someone openly carrying a power drill, or T-square.
Quote:
there's no reason to carry a gun openly except to make a statement.
I disagree, it's REAL hard to CCW effectively when it's 96F degrees outside and you have something active to do, I mean, where you gonna put it ?
(This being kinda the reason for some of those horrific hawaian shirts I own, actually)
Sure, I see the point of not openly strapping when you COULD conceal it, but there are some times and places where it's not really very practical, and as such open carry would be preferable to not carrying.
Quote:
In a dangerous area, I'd feel otherwise, in fact I might well accept that showing one is carrying a gun is a good deterrent. But those places are few, given all of America. That was my point.
Thing is, doll, YOU don't get to choose when and where someone with ill intent will accost you - you can try, and very effectively I might add, to avoid it, to avoid the preconditions which lead to it, hell I happen to be right durned good at that myself, but the chance is there - just cause an area is mostly safe doesn't mean it's completely safe, same logic as not needing the spare tire for a trip to the store, but you take it anyways, don't you ?
Point of fact, it was my very LACK of ambivalence about that regarding wearing a helmet that saved my life in the accident which nearly killed me, it was just a quick trip to the store, along a "safe" route, to grab a pack of smokes, and BLAM...
As far as the hysteria factor, maybe it's the same difference of thought process I mentioned earlier in this post, but the automatic assumption of suspicion just cause someone is packing, complete with assumption of their motives and intent - that's what I am talking about, that the mere presence of a weapon would change someones inherent nature ?
I don't get that, I just don't, maybe I just ain't capable of understanding the argument, I dunno.
Consider this, take the sanest, kindest, most decent person you know, and then picture them with a weapon - does this change THEM, or change HOW YOU VIEW THEM ?
Why ?
That's the hysteria I am talking about, right there.
(On a wider scale, I am also including the social consciousness flipout, since we're discussing public reaction and whatnot)
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... it was just a quick trip to the store, along a "safe" route, to grab a pack of smokes, and BLAM..."
So, smoking is bad for your health ? 
***************************************************************
The 
made me do it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"So, smoking is bad for your health ?"
Yes it is.
So is being ambivalent.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"So is being ambivalent."
Maybe someone else can unscramble what you mean.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Mike: agreed. But given, I repeat, that the entire discussion went on until "everyone" was brought up, I think my point is valid.
And no, I ws NOT arguing that everyone SHOULD carry openly; I was arguing that if everyone COULD, that left the potential open for those whould SHOULDN'T be allowed to carry a gun around openly would be among them. So "everyone" includes "anyone"...do you see the correlation?
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
Actually, Niki, I *don't* see the correlation. In fact, I see it from a somewhat opposite view, which I believe I laid out in my reason why *I* personally wouldn't be likely to open-carry: If you need a permit to do it, the act of doing it opens you up to be "hassled by The Man", i.e., made to produce your papers to show that you're allowed to do what you're doing. And woe be unto he who can't produce such documentation!
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, Frem, let's try this: Your opinions come from your experiences, where you've lived, and you extrapolate from there. Ditto mine.
It's easy to avoid crime areas here, and I do. If I have to go through them, I do in my car and don't stop. There is NO place in Marin where I would worry to go at night. Any other place I have to go at night which I consider even slightly dangerous, I have my dog. That's all I'll ever need.
Now, HERE, if anyone walked around with a gun strapped on, it would be insane, even if it was legal. The cops would be following you around, for one thing, and people would look at you like you were crazy.
Ergo, that is how my opinion is formed. I've always lived in the Bay Area; 99% of the places here, that's the way it is. Nobody would go to Richmond, for example, and feel safe, but there are few places like that around here, or in Caifornia for the most part.
You've had a hard life and had your life threatened apparently numerous times. You see it differently. You stated the whole difference yourself:Quote:
I, on the other hand, CAN both comprehend and envision someone carrying a gun, concealed or otherwise, in a high-crime area, without difficulty. So if I CAN envision it without difficulty, and to you it's "sideways", who has the stronger prejudice, and perhaps whose view is more skewed?
I don't comprehend that, I mean, I understand what you're trying to say - but it's never going to click in my head, it just comes so sideways to my thought process it just comes across as something like a divide-by-zero error.
Yes, I DO get to choose when and where someone is going to accost me. I choose it by where I go, when I go, how I carry myself, how observant I am, and most of all, by having my husky beside me.
And no, I don't consider anything here "hysteria"..."prejudice", "assumptive" maybe, but not hysteria, by a long shot. I see it as a debate between pro-gun, pro-open carry and either anti-gun or anti-open carry, period.
As to Quote:
again you're missing the point. Of COURSE people would view someone carrying a gun with suspicion HERE...nobody does. That automatically makes their motives and intent suspicious...even if it were legal to do so. Nobody DOES, 99% of the people WOULDN'T, so it's only natural people would view someone who DID and wonder why.
but the automatic assumption of suspicion just cause someone is packing, complete with assumption of their motives and intent - that's what I am talking about, that the mere presence of a weapon would change someones inherent nature ?
A couple of people here have already said that, even if open carry were the law, they probably wouldn't do so because it would freak people out or make them feel uncomfortable. That's why...because 99% of the people in America don't walk around with a gun strapped to their hips...and where concealed carry is the law, they don't SEE them.
In a place where just about every kind of weirdness of look is accepted and just walked past without a thought, someone sporting a huge knife (I mean HUGE, many carry knives and I used to), a rifle or a gun stands out. Not a sword, as they'd just be viewed as on their way to the Ren Faire or a sci fi convention or something. It's about the society you LIVE in and how they perceive weapons, not guns per se.
I disagree that around here I'd need to carry one. We know where the dangerous places are, and stay away from them. Simple as that. We don't have shootings here except domestic violence or gang violence. We have FREEWAY shootings, but having a gun wouldn't do a damned bit of good there since the guy is up on a hill taking pot shots with a rifle. Nobody walking around most areas of Marin is ever in any danger from someone with a gun, it just doesn't happen. And IF YOU HAVE A BIG DOG, nobody's gonna mess with you anyway. That's my "weapon", if you will...it's fully accepted and keeps me from confrontation or victimization, which is the only place I'd need a gun anyway.
What I've bee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Your opinions come from your experiences, where you've lived, and you extrapolate from there. Ditto mine.
It's easy to avoid crime areas here, and I do. If I have to go through them, I do in my car and don't stop. There is NO place in Marin where I would worry to go at night. Any other place I have to go at night which I consider even slightly dangerous, I have my dog. That's all I'll ever need.
Thanks for that, Nik - it DOES lend some perspective, at least to me. I've lived in farms and small towns, and I've lived in some REALLY bad areas, and I've lived on military bases, so I've always been around guns and been comfortable around them. I generally *don't* think twice about having one on me, but my wife gets freaky about it, because she was never around them before we met. So she gets uneasy, but she's come around a bit.
I think when it comes to firearms, you and I are just going to disagree. That's okay - you're still one of my favorite people here, and I'm very glad you found us, even if it took you a while to get here!
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Have just enough time for a quick comment: Thinking that more violence (or the threat of it) is the answer to a violent society is insane IMHO. Open carry would just give those carrying guns an itchy trigger-finger, and scare everyone else.
I don't care WHO you are: whether you're police or my neighbor, I see someone openly carrying a gun and I DON'T feel "safe"or "protected", I feel damn nervous. (Did I ever tell you about the time I almost got my head blown off by a cop in the dark by mistake? It was a "hot prowl" at MY house, and he thought I was the robber!)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And that right there is why I would opt for concealed carry if practical. There's no need for me to go upsetting strangers.
Now, if OC were an option and it was 110F outside, then you just might have to deal with it. I hate hawaiian shirts.
Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Have just enough time for a quick comment: Thinking that more violence (or the threat of it) is the answer to a violent society is insane IMHO. Open carry would just give those carrying guns an itchy trigger-finger, and scare everyone else.
I don't care WHO you are: whether you're police or my neighbor, I see someone openly carrying a gun and I DON'T feel "safe"or "protected", I feel damn nervous. (Did I ever tell you about the time I almost got my head blown off by a cop in the dark by mistake? It was a "hot prowl" at MY house, and he thought I was the robber!)
*blink*
That kinda thing, there... see.
The automatic assumptions.
Like hell I'd get an "itchy trigger finger" cause folk open carried, I done said I wouldn't, but of course the argument doesn't work unless you ignore that and go assumin folks motives and intent without regard to their own statements on the matter.
And I think I see where the disconnect between my concept and yours is, Nike ole girl...
Take EVERY mention of "gun" or "weapon" in here and replace it with "screwdriver" or "tool", and you will understand WHY my concept and yours ain't never likely to connect on this.
That's really, honestly, no-bullshit how I see it, it's just a tool, an inanimate object, no more or less worthy of attention than someone carrying a wrench.
Although I do think I'd prolly have the same reaction to someone carrying a minigun or rocket launcher as I would someone carrying a full size lathe or drill press.
*eyebrow lift*
"Ok, that seems a bit excessive, doesn't it ?"
*shrug*
There's times and places where my thought process works SO sideways to most folk there's just no way to translate it, and this is one of em, but hell, I tried.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So, smoking is bad for your health ?
On a lighter note, this joke works all too well, given not only the nature of the accident in question, but how the folks who came to collect what they honestly thought was a DOA figured out I was alive.
I yanked one of em's pants leg and "Hey man, you got a smoke, i'm dyin here..." - yes, that's right, smashed up, mangled, half bled to death, and there I was having a nic fit and annoyed about it.
Even funnier, they were SO sure I was gonna die, that I was never gonna wake up, they had a nurse there on deathwatch just in case I did mumble anything before I passed on to the next world.
My eyes snap open, flick to the left...
"Get me some coffee, wouldja ?"
I'm just that much a creature of habit, meh.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME