Sensei's of the left

[quote=“Trance, post:20, topic:6261”]
Some years ago, Coldplay (decent group, btw) went on an anti-capitalist tirade calling it ‘the system of Satan’
[/quote]Hell, that J.Anderson guy is saying something similar here in another thread.

And since Coldplay hates Capitalism and profit, then they should not have problems with me downloading their music, rather than paying for it.

Right?

Nah that’s Radiohead.

This is not about Chomsky although i have no respect for a pinhead anti american citizen. I lump the following in with the likes of chomsky:

At some point after the civil rights ‘wars’…i’m not sure when…i only made a mental note rather than note a specific date…i noticed that news programs, documentaries, discussion type shows on television would feature, in this specific case, TWO FREAKING IGNORANT BLACK CONVICTS to speak about human rights and civil rights and prisoner rights. They were asking the foxes how to solve the problem of the non-secure hen house. Now i wasn’t particularly old at this time…and i noticed that these guys were ignoramuses…they were using big words that didn’t belong and looking back on it, it reminds me of a comedy skit. Something you’d see on the old saturday nite live.

Now, what 40 years later, we have the same guys on television…marc lamont hill phd on the O’Reilly show still using big words, this time knowing how to use them, but they’re still speaking Ignospeak. ‘DokTer’ Hill is a leftist and a big supporter of OBama. And they still think the public is so stupid that we can’t see thru the charade. :coffee_spray:

You guys want to know some more rational bands that really rock? Try Disturbed, one of my favs. They sing about God, try the song Prayer, and are well known to singing to the troops. They have a few negative songs about Bush though, no big deal though.

Another is System of a Down.

Gotta give Gnome Chumpski his due. Think about it for a minute the genius behind getting very comfortably wealthy preaching to socialists about the evils of capitalism.:slayer:

Oh yes also exposing all his Government secret conspiracies through FOIA.:coffee_spray:

Yep that is #2 in my 'You may be a Liberal if…" post

Yeah … Rush is not “druggy”! Yeah. You see Rush in Rio? “Soup”? Yeah. Soup. No drugs. Wreathed in smoke in Lebanon, we burn the midnight oil; the fragrance of Afghanistan rewards a long day’s toil … nothing but soup, oil, and fragrances going on there, boy howdy. I think that Rush are Nancy Reagan’s shoe-shine boys!

Love your avatar and signature Susanna. But tell me, do you support the right to bear arms? Is the right to bear arms supported more by the right than by the left in the US?

Or should I be asking if you support the right to bear arms with no limitations and is that supported more by those on the left or the right?

We Canadians support the right to bear arms but with some limitations in general. And of course we have some people at both extremes who would place no limitations or would ban guns completely. Those are a minority.

“The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The only “exceptions,” as far as I can see should be criminals - who have given up their rights, and minors, who are too young to make a sensible choice. There’s a reason they’re called minors.

OK, here is the entire text of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

No exceptions Susanna? Surely you would see that there have to be some exceptions. Not to try to be ridiculous but to point out how far ‘no exceptions’ can be taken: How about a shoulder fired rocket launcher in the back of a picup truck driving up to the gates of the Whitehouse? (not a bad idea- snicker :wink: )

But seriously, you obviously know that Canada has strict rules on who and where handguns can be carried by the ordinary citizen. I would be one to defend those restrictions adamantly.

[quote=“Canadian_capitalist, post:31, topic:6261”]
No exceptions Susanna? Surely you would see that there have to be some exceptions. Not to try to be ridiculous but to point out how far ‘no exceptions’ can be taken: How about a shoulder fired rocket launcher in the back of a picup truck driving up to the gates of the Whitehouse? (not a bad idea- snicker :wink: )

But seriously, you obviously know that Canada has strict rules on who and where handguns can be carried by the ordinary citizen. I would be one to defend those restrictions adamantly.
[/quote]As written, there are no exceptions to the 2nd Amendment. I believe that limitation on convicted felons, children, and the dangerously incompetent/insane is implicit (although the latter case could get messy definitionwise), because they aren’t fully “people” in the sense of the Bill of Rights.

Obviously, the Founding Fathers of our nation didn’t forsee nukes and machine guns and such. My big problem is that the left’s solution is to do an end run around the Constitution, rather than seek amendment. That to me renders suspect the motives of those who seek to disarm us.

Personally, I draw the line farther to the right than you do. In most cases, a well-armed citizenry is a polite and well-behaved citizenry. The only exception in our country (in my opinion) would be like subversives, gangbangers, and such.

Also, a well-armed citizenry is good insurance against genocide. The Nazis, Stalinists, and Maoists all had extensive gun control laws in place prior to their respective purges.

Interesting! Is that your own interpretation of the B of R’s on those people not being fully ‘people’ or is it stated that way? And if so then would that cover the right to vote too in that you have to be considered fully a ‘person’ in order to vote.

Obviously, the Founding Fathers of our nation didn’t forsee nukes and machine guns and such. My big problem is that the left’s solution is to do an end run around the Constitution, rather than seek amendment. That to me renders suspect the motives of those who seek to disarm us.

First of all I asked earlier if it was the project of the right or of the left to eliminate guns and I got no answer. I’ve heard many Americans on the left who were very pro-gun as well as many on the right who are. Therefore I’m still not totally clear on that. From what I know so far it appears to me to be neither the left or the right’s agenda to forbid guns in the hands of the people. To that I will also just add that I know there are many Americans who see no distinction between machine guns ( or fully automatic weapons) and other guns, rifles, etc. But you do seem to draw a distinction.

From a Canadian pov, or at least this Canadian’s pov, I believe that the right for a citizen to carry guns around and use them needs to be balanced against the danger the use of said guns pose to all our citizens. Frankly, I see our right to live in relative safety as trumping some guns, some people owning guns, and some places where they should not be carried.

Personally, I draw the line farther to the right than you do. In most cases, a well-armed citizenry is a polite and well-behaved citizenry. The only exception in our country (in my opinion) would be like subversives, gangbangers, and such.

Also, a well-armed citizenry is good insurance against genocide. The Nazis, Stalinists, and Maoists all had extensive gun control laws in place prior to their respective purges.

This is still a little confusing to me because after all, I still don’t recognize those who cherish their right to bear arms as being either more right or more left. However that is from my own perspective. Are you saying that the right in America is more pro-gun overall than those on the left? Frankly, I would have thought it was just the opposite.

I’m afraid I just don’t relate at all to the argument that a well armed citizenry is insurance against genocide. Mainly because I think it quite ridiculous to think that the US government is going to commit genocide against the American people.

respectfully, CC.

[quote=“Canadian_capitalist, post:33, topic:6261”]
Interesting! Is that your own interpretation of the B of R’s on those people not being fully ‘people’ or is it stated that way? And if so then would that cover the right to vote too in that you have to be considered fully a ‘person’ in order to vote.

First of all I asked earlier if it was the project of the right or of the left to eliminate guns and I got no answer. I’ve heard many Americans on the left who were very pro-gun as well as many on the right who are. Therefore I’m still not totally clear on that. From what I know so far it appears to me to be neither the left or the right’s agenda to forbid guns in the hands of the people. To that I will also just add that I know there are many Americans who see no distinction between machine guns ( or fully automatic weapons) and other guns, rifles, etc. But you do seem to draw a distinction.

From a Canadian pov, or at least this Canadian’s pov, I believe that the right for a citizen to carry guns around and use them needs to be balanced against the danger the use of said guns pose to all our citizens. Frankly, I see our right to live in relative safety as trumping some guns, some people owning guns, and some places where they should not be carried.

This is still a little confusing to me because after all, I still don’t recognize those who cherish their right to bear arms as being either more right or more left. However that is from my own perspective. Are you saying that the right in America is more pro-gun overall than those on the left? Frankly, I would have thought it was just the opposite.

I’m afraid I just don’t relate at all to the argument that a well armed citizenry is insurance against genocide. Mainly because I think it quite ridiculous to think that the US government is going to commit genocide against the American people.

respectfully, CC.
[/quote]The “not fully people” thing is my interpretation. I base it in part on the common sense belief that the Founding Fathers would agree that neither a young child nor a convicted murder (or other perpetrator of a violent felony) should have a gun. Indeed, we do not grant the right to vote to either catagory, either. We also don’t allow the right of liberty to incarcerated felons, or in death-row cases, life itself (in a like vein, I think we should deny them the right to sue (that would save a lot of money) and the right to the pursuit of happiness while they’re incarcerated).

As to weighing the danger to society against the right to bear arms, I think that by and large the gun control philosophy misses the point. Crime committed with guns isn’t a gun problem; it’s a people problem. The Old West where many or most men wore a revolver on their hip was (reputation not withstanding) a hell of a lot safer than today’s inner city where gun laws abound. Good or evil is not in the weapon; it’s in the wielder. If you’re not dealing with the people-problem (teaching responsibility, virtue, discipline and self-respect (distinct from self-esteem)), then you’re not dealing with the root of the crime problem at all; just a symptom.

The genocide argument is because you cannot opress a people who can fight back. If our own laws were being obeyed by the powers that be, it *couldn’t *happen here. But the powers that be are crooked. We’re already seeing a measure of persecution against Christians by government and the media, not unlike Nazi persecution of the Jews. It’s just taking a lot longer because our form of government is at least somewhat successful at limiting power, and because the U.S. was born a free nation (for the most part), and has enjoyed many generations of that freedom; thus, those who would oppress cannot do so overnight. They have to take our freedom in bits and pieces, hoping that the majority won’t get it.

On edit: I forgot to address your question about left vs. right on gun control. Although there are exceptions, it is my observation and experience that by and large, pro-gunners tend to be conservative, and anti-gunners liberal.

Leftists are very pro-gun control and anti-gun ownership.

We Canadians support the right to bear arms but with some limitations in general. And of course we have some people at both extremes who would place no limitations or would ban guns completely. Those are a minority.

As already stated, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringed is the keyword, by the very nature means no restrictions on the type of weapon…

While I disagree about the person your post is targeted to about criminals in general, a person that has been proven to murder (keyword: murder, to kill in cold blood) has opted to give up all rights to being human and is nothing more than a wild animal. I would say they should have no right to vote, either. Now, a nonviolent criminal I would say still has a right to own and bear weapons…

Frankly, I see our right to live in relative safety as trumping some guns, some people owning guns, and some places where they should not be carried.

That’s not the American way. Our founding fathers found that it is better to side with too much liberty than too little liberty where we could easily be conquered…

This is still a little confusing to me because after all, I still don’t recognize those who cherish their right to bear arms as being either more right or more left. However that is from my own perspective. Are you saying that the right in America is more pro-gun overall than those on the left? Frankly, I would have thought it was just the opposite.

Historically, no… the leftists of today stem from the very groups that would’ve had us remain under British control.

I’m afraid I just don’t relate at all to the argument that a well armed citizenry is insurance against genocide. Mainly because I think it quite ridiculous to think that the US government is going to commit genocide against the American people.

Of course you don’t, because you’re not paying attention to the big picture. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and conquering is no different. The most successful way to conquer your enemy is to gain sympathy from them so you can disarm them.

Abraham Lincoln said it himself, (paraphrased) “America cannot be defeated from without, but only from within shall we be destroyed.”

Remember World War II? Why did Japan never try conquering America? Why did many of the Japanese fear us after Pearl Harbor? Because we cling to our guns so openly and easily.

Genocide simply isn’t needed to conquer your enemies, disarmament is.

(Read “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu.)

I understand what you mean with the ‘people’ comment now and of course I agree that rights need to be witheld in some cases. Children, convicted felons, insane individuals, and people with a propensity to do violence. But we don’t live in a perfect world and we don’t have individuals who make perfect decisions. Therefore I still stand behind Canada’s decision to keep weapons which are intended for only one purpose in the main (most handguns) must be restricted to some degree. As for people being responsible for handgun violence, people in Canada aren’t responsible for handgun violence unless they get their hands on illegal guns. They get their hands on illegal guns because the handguns for the most part come across the border from the US. Therefore my argument will be: If handgun violence in Canada is far less per capita then we need to compare ‘people’. When we compare ‘people’ I think we can say with relative surety that our people are the same in the respect we are discussing. Or, on the whole the people in your country are not predisposed to commiting violence any more than the people in my country are. I would suggest that the guns are the problem for your gun violence statistics.

As to weighing the danger to society against the right to bear arms, I think that by and large the gun control philosophy misses the point. Crime committed with guns isn’t a gun problem; it’s a people problem. The Old West where many or most men wore a revolver on their hip was (reputation not withstanding) a hell of a lot safer than today’s inner city where gun laws abound. Good or evil is not in the weapon; it’s in the wielder. If you’re not dealing with the people-problem (teaching responsibility, virtue, discipline and self-respect (distinct from self-esteem)), then you’re not dealing with the root of the crime problem at all; just a symptom.

I understand your position and I have attempted to address it in my paragraph above. I will say that I believe it’s a fallacy that people in the old West carried handguns strapped on their hips. If handguns were carried by criminals then they were carried concealed in the person’s pocket for the most part. Neither Canada’s ‘old west’ nor the US ‘old west’ was actually a ‘shootem up’ society as pictured in the westerns. It’s interesting to read an actual transcript of the gunfight at o.k. corral for a proper appreciation of what gunfighters were and how they operated. It was never a fast draw scenario to say the least.

I would however attempt to introduce you to the idea that some differences in our two countries could be in the fact that your country was formed through revolution while Canada was not. I have heard it expressed as of late that this siple fact could account for some of our most outstanding differences. For what it’s worth?

The genocide argument is because you cannot opress a people who can fight back. If our own laws were being obeyed by the powers that be, it *couldn’t *happen here. But the powers that be are crooked. We’re already seeing a measure of persecution against Christians by government and the media, not unlike Nazi persecution of the Jews. It’s just taking a lot longer because our form of government is at least somewhat successful at limiting power, and because the U.S. was born a free nation (for the most part), and has enjoyed many generations of that freedom; thus, those who would oppress cannot do so overnight. They have to take our freedom in bits and pieces, hoping that the majority won’t get it.

I understand what you are saying and I have heard the argument expressed in that way many times before. I’m sorry but I’m afraid I can’t quite relate to the possibility that your citizens will ever need their guns to defend themselves against their government. However I will say that I may be missing something because of the fact that there is the difference in our societies which I have mentioned above. Revolution vs. not. I know of no other real distinction of any major importance and even that distinction seems to be of minor importance to me. Suffice to say, I couldn’t imagine a time when Canadian citizens would need guns to defend themselves against the Canadian government.

On edit: I forgot to address your question about left vs. right on gun control. Although there are exceptions, it is my observation and experience that by and large, pro-gunners tend to be conservative, and anti-gunners liberal.

I’m not really convinced but we can leave it at that if yor prefere. I would think that the exceptions are not too far from being close to the same in number on both sides. But that is my observation as an outsider. I could say with almost certainty that the distinction between right and left on guns is hardly noticable in Canada. And I am aware of the longgun registry shmozzle of the Liberal Party of Canada a few years ago.

Thanks for your ideas. Respectfully, CC.

I have addressed the question with Fantasy Chaser in my post above. Other than that I will just add that saying it is true doesn’t make it true. Perhaps you will be interested in commenting on what I said to her.

As already stated, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringed is the keyword, by the very nature means no restrictions on the type of weapon…

I understand that is close to ‘as written’ in your Second amendment but I would just add that it is sensible to me to search for a proper clarification of it’s meaning and intent. I would refer back to our conversation on transporting a shoulder fired rocket launcher in a pickup truck to the gates of the Whitehouse. All sorts of silly examples can be imagined but when some cowboy decides to be silly then it’s probably time to try to come to an interpretation of what your Second amendment was intended to mean.

While I disagree about the person your post is targeted to about criminals in general, a person that has been proven to murder (keyword: murder, to kill in cold blood) has opted to give up all rights to being human and is nothing more than a wild animal. I would say they should have no right to vote, either. Now, a nonviolent criminal I would say still has a right to own and bear weapons…

I can’t agree with you on people becoming wild animals, although I recognize that you have expressed yourself rhetorically and that rhetoric is an expression of your anger. I would however disagree with the disenfranchizement of individuals for any reason and would be prepared to express my views on that issue in an appropriate place and time. Being new to this forum I won’t take the liberty of straying off topic too much at this time with you by elaborating on that issue.

That’s not the American way. Our founding fathers found that it is better to side with too much liberty than too little liberty where we could easily be conquered…

The question at issue for me and as I have expressed with Fantasy, is that granting too many special liberties to some can take away liberties of others. I think we also need to take into consideration that equality and fraternity need to be considered more relevant in your country. I believe the balance has been lost somehow.

Historically, no… the leftists of today stem from the very groups that would’ve had us remain under British control.

???

Of course you don’t, because you’re not paying attention to the big picture. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and conquering is no different. The most successful way to conquer your enemy is to gain sympathy from them so you can disarm them.

Those comments lead me to thinking that you are saying that your government would coerce your people into becoming sympathetic to the government’s cause and then when they are sympathetic the people would hand over their guns. That’s the only interpretation of what you say that I can imagine at the moment. This really does seem to negate the nedd for a gun doesn’t it? Perhaps you can explain further what you imagine happening? Can you present a scenario where your government would attempt to ‘skin the cat’ in another way?

Abraham Lincoln said it himself, (paraphrased) “America cannot be defeated from without, but only from within shall we be destroyed.”

Comment above well taken but I don’t see how it is relevant to the question until you lay out the scenario you imagine happening.

Remember World War II? Why did Japan never try conquering America? Why did many of the Japanese fear us after Pearl Harbor? Because we cling to our guns so openly and easily.

I would have to respectfully disagree with that notion. Suffice to say that we all fought them over there so we didn’t need to fight them over here. Neither Canadians nor Americans being armed was a factor in the outcome of the war or the method in which the war was fought and won.

Genocide simply isn’t needed to conquer your enemies, disarmament is.

(Read “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu.)

Thank you for your comments. respectfully, CC.

Wow, too much for me to try to address it all, so I’ll just tackle a few points.

[quote=“Canadian_capitalist, post:36, topic:6261”]
I understand what you mean with the ‘people’ comment now and of course I agree that rights need to be witheld in some cases. Children, convicted felons, insane individuals, and people with a propensity to do violence. But we don’t live in a perfect world and we don’t have individuals who make perfect decisions. Therefore I still stand behind Canada’s decision to keep weapons which are intended for only one purpose in the main (most handguns) must be restricted to some degree. As for people being responsible for handgun violence, people in Canada aren’t responsible for handgun violence unless they get their hands on illegal guns. They get their hands on illegal guns because the handguns for the most part come across the border from the US. Therefore my argument will be: If handgun violence in Canada is far less per capita then we need to compare ‘people’. When we compare ‘people’ I think we can say with relative surety that our people are the same in the respect we are discussing. Or, on the whole the people in your country are not predisposed to commiting violence any more than the people in my country are. I would suggest that the guns are the problem for your gun violence statistics.
[/quote]I would make the gun crime rate comparison of America today vs. America of half a century ago when gun control laws were few and far between. Access to guns is harder now, not easier. There wasn’t any Form 4473 that you had to fill out for the Feds.

[quote=“Canadian_capitalist, post:36, topic:6261”]

I understand what you are saying and I have heard the argument expressed in that way many times before. I’m sorry but I’m afraid I can’t quite relate to the possibility that your citizens will ever need their guns to defend themselves against their government. However I will say that I may be missing something because of the fact that there is the difference in our societies which I have mentioned above. Revolution vs. not. I know of no other real distinction of any major importance and even that distinction seems to be of minor importance to me. Suffice to say, I couldn’t imagine a time when Canadian citizens would need guns to defend themselves against the Canadian government.
[/quote]I imagine that German Jews couldn’t imagine it in 1930, either.

[quote=“Canadian_capitalist, post:36, topic:6261”]

I’m not really convinced but we can leave it at that if yor prefere. I would think that the exceptions are not too far from being close to the same in number on both sides. But that is my observation as an outsider. I could say with almost certainty that the distinction between right and left on guns is hardly noticable in Canada. And I am aware of the longgun registry shmozzle of the Liberal Party of Canada a few years ago.

Thanks for your ideas. Respectfully, CC.
[/quote]I’ll admit that I’ve not known many liberals personally, but it’s a pretty well documented fact that Democrat politicians are by and large the ones who have supported gun control, and Republicans by and large (perhaps less so nowadays) have opposed it. I have to think that they’re more or less in line with the will of their party’s constituents.

I think there are a lot more guns to be had nowadays and as far as access goes, I don’t think we’re talking about people who need to fill out forms to get their guns. Law abiding citizens have no problem in getting guns. But in saying that I’m not discoundting the very fact that many gun deaths in your country are committed by people who were formerly law abding citizens. Non-accident in part and accidentally too of course.

I imagine that German Jews couldn’t imagine it in 1930, either.

You seem to now advocating for gun ownership in the hands of minorities. This is a slightly different issue in my opinion and could be a dangerous idea to promote. What comes to mind are some of the violence which has occured in both our countries. Then there are the abundance of school shooting which occur mainly in the US by teenagers.

After all, I still fall back on my original argument of protecting the rights of many by curtailing the rights of a few gun owners. Actually I just read today in another thread that Jefferson made that very point.

I’ll admit that I’ve not known many liberals personally, but it’s a pretty well documented fact that Democrat politicians are by and large the ones who have supported gun control, and Republicans by and large (perhaps less so nowadays) have opposed it. I have to think that they’re more or less in line with the will of their party’s constituents.

I’ll defer to your limited knowledge then and accept that there is more of an effort of gun control on the left than the right. On a liberal forum that would cause some whining and screams of protest. Quite a few liberals have expressed to me their defence of your second amendment. But I do think the generality can’t cross the border to Canada. I see little distinction between the right and the left.

respectfully, CC.

[quote=“Canadian_capitalist, post:39, topic:6261”]
You seem to now advocating for gun ownership in the hands of minorities. This is a slightly different issue in my opinion and could be a dangerous idea to promote. What comes to mind are some of the violence which has occured in both our countries. Then there are the abundance of school shooting which occur mainly in the US by teenagers. After all, I still fall back on my original argument of protecting the rights of many by curtailing the rights of a few gun owners. Actually I just read today in another thread that Jefferson made that very point.

respectfully, CC.
[/quote]Just another hit-and-run response from me (I’ve been on the internet too dang long tonight). I do not advocate a selective arming of minorities. I merely cited the German Jews because they were successfully targeted. Anyone can be a target of oppression. The targets of the Stalinists and the Maoists were different. If all have the right to keep and bear arms, then mass oppression is impractical at least, and impossible at most.