Open Forum Discussions and Debate

And for those who are asking 'what's a tar baby?', refer to Joel Chandler Harris' 'Uncle Remus' and 'Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby'

Trying to get back to a discussion of political correctness, jeb? Last July, ex-Governor of Massachusetts and Presidential aspirant Mitt Romney had to apologize for referring to the ''Big Dig'' tunnel project in Boston as a ''tar baby.''

see: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/31/politics/main18511 99.shtml

...and do we really need a spell-checker here?

Well, it seems that the nanny crowd on Easy has decided that guns are bad. They're probably in favor of anger management classes for psychopaths.

Spell checkers be damned! Any plonker can use a spell checker. Where would the excitement of random happenstance be found? The joy of discovery would be lost as witnessed by the appearance of 'yarnks'. Without it, life would be bereft of the serendipitous encounter. No more would we hear the glib repartee joined by opposing forensic disputants. What need for academic exactitude? One could frivolously dash out random characters with little care for the import of thought or deed knowing that their spell checker would make all things inerrant in the end. As a crutch, it would lead the sadly handicapped illiterati into a miasma of disability. Eschew the spell checker in favor of the spontaneous encounter inherent in an errant pinky.

jeb, I agree wholeheartedly with whatever it is that you just said...

The incredible irony of nannification is the backfire. There was a time when an abused woman's brothers would beat the hell out of their brother-in-law...end of abuse. Now, thanks to nannification, they are the ones in trouble.

Ian, I am what you deem part of the 'nanny crowd on easy' who agrees that there should be gun control. I feel guns have a place in life. Hunters surely have a right to enjoy their hubby and as Nancy/Pa. points out, hunters help keep herds thinned out to a reasonable number. My problem with guns are the guns that are not for hunting herds, but humans. I have a problem with easy access to guns by children and I have a problem with the laws as they stand today that allow gun purchasers unlimited purchases with very poor screening backgrounds. Yes, the unlawful folks have so many guns in their hands that law abiding folks think they can only protect themselves by also owning guns. Many, not all, fail to learn proper storage, maintance and/or use of these deadly weapons. What it amounts to for me, I guess, is that while there are legitimate reasons for responsible gun ownership and usage,recognition needs to bring about an end to illegal guns and the ease of access so that the general populace is safer. If this makes me a nanny....so be it!!!

There's a lot to be said for gun conrol. Here, if you have a valid reason for owning a gun, ie. hunter, farmer, hobby shooter etc. you need to be licenced and the guns need to be locked away safely (this is checked from time to time by police). No, it doesn't stop criminals from getting hold of guns, but it does stop your average John/Mary Citizen whose brain suddenly snaps, from shooting up the neighbourhood or shooting his/her family.

Nannification or nannidity? Regardless, gun control or not: If gun control, then a major concern hereabouts is who's doing the controlling and what is their agenda. An unarmed populace - a populace that is easily disarmed - is an easy target for despotism. On the other hand, a large population with a strata of disenfranchised citizens offers a breading ground for antisocial behavior. If firearms are easily attainable, people will get hurt. Either way, a police state is not far off. The question is, is there a satisfactory middle ground? Licensing and regulation become a bureaucratic black hole of ineptitude and those most in need of close supervision are the ones that slip through the cracks. In 1883, the local county sheriff was shot to death by a disturbed man during a band concert. The best technology of the day was a single action revolver, a dbl barrel shotgun or a lever action repeating rifle. He only had time to get off one shot before being dragged down, hauled off and lynched. Nowadays, automatic assault rifles with large capacity magazines are available. The conclusion here is that people havaen't changed all that much over the years but the ability to hurt more people faster has.

Spell checker, chequeur, chequar..(plum user maybe)
I remain acluistic at this point. Adjectize away. As a caffeinatic I will continue to calbliterate and dallywaddle, I'm in a bit of a pajangle at the moment and need to palpicake my toast.. it must be my sapiosexuality kicking in. Spell checkers sounds like a wizards tablecloth...

“We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Perhaps we are not looking at the right solution with regard to gun control...

The same conversation by the same people as when 3 Amish schoolgirls were shot on 3/10/06. I have an extraordinary feeling of déjà gnu!

jebbles - I agree too - about the spoll chocker that is.

andré i don't know how you got 'sapisexuality' thru and I have no idea what it means.

As for gun control...it would 'help' perhaps, but will not stop those that want to do harm to others. It will take years for the mindset to change when it is such an integral part of the psyche - the right to bear arms.

sapiosexuality (sā-pē-ō-sĕk-shü-ăl'ĭ-tē)
a. (n.) A behaviour of becoming attracted to or aroused by intelligence and its use.

Example: Me? I don't care too much about the looks. I want an incisive, inquisitive, insightful, irreverent mind. I want someone for whom philosophical discussion is foreplay. I want someone who sometimes makes me go ouch due to their wit and evil sense of humour...
(not my words but..)

'ygawd André, I think you've got it!
Who was it who, while climbing down from his Sopwith Camel, said; 'Pilut? I'm not sure how to spell it but I think I are one.'?
Unless there is objection from the panel, you have just been elivated to research pundit extraordinaire.

...how does one incorporate it in a pick-up line if the need should arise??

As for the right solution for gun control: The same could be said for people who have no business whelping children. My daughter in law is a teacher in Head Start, a federally funded pre-school for disadvantaged, at risk children. The laissez faire attitude of some people (can't call them parents) towards their children is a appalling. The living conditions many of these children are exposed to is criminal in the extreme. How much difference is there between children being murdered in their classroom and uneducated children left to grow up with absolutly no parental guidance and turned loose on the street to a life of poverty and crime? Neither will ever have the chance to reach their potential.

...I'm a sapiosexual, what's your sign?

There was an interesting paper written in 2000 arguing Criminal Justice, Gun control, Public Health, University of Sydney. I agree with the arguments posed and because they are too long to post here I refer you to that paper ...
http://www.australianreview.net/journal/v1/n2/peters_brown e.pdf

ROTFL, Jeb

From, You have shown that at least three people remain consistent in their viewpoints, and not that the points were good or bad...so what was your point? We will never have perfection in this world, but we can do much to improve on current conditions starting with our attitudes. Jeb, Billy and Andrè, thanks for the smiles!

Mamacita: Good catch on the from post. I missed that. Maybe the anonymity influenced my decision to disparage its credability and ignore the comment. An organization I have been affiliated with for many years occasionally reminds us that the affect we, as individuals, can have on just one person, has the potential of creating a positive ripple effect within a society.

I had turned the computer off early last night after making my statements about firearms control. Will leave a message to From on Easy today. We in Canada have a firearms registry now. There was (and still is) a large hue and cry about the cost of this registry and the overall effectiveness of it, but for the most part, the majority of Canadians have bought into it. The registry is for all firearms, sporting rifles, shotguns, legal handguns, collectibles, you name it. We do not allow the sale of or the importation of automatic weapons without extensive screening of the individual making the purchase, and I do mean extensive, as there is a waiting period and a full check in all police computer systems. You cannot walk into a firearm store and purchase a weapon without the proper permits (a firearms acquisition certificate) from police, and you cannot legally even transport a gun without a permit to transport from the police. Our biggest issue and ongoing problem is the illegal importation of firearms (weapons) easily obtained in the United States. The legal argument, supported by firearm lobbyists in the US, is that the 2nd amendment of the US constitution guarantees everyone the right to own a firearm. (Interesting that within 14 hours of the shooting at Virginia Tech the Governor went on record to support American's right to bear arms under the constitution.) Fine, but does the firearm have to be a semi or fully automatic weapon? Why can anyone want a fully automatic rapid shooting handgun, etc, to hunt ducks or moose, or to protect their sheep and cattle? Why sell them to individuals? What is their use other then destruction and overkill. Try shooting 15 bullets into a pheasant and see if you have enough of the bird left for dinner. Firearm control doesn't restrict law-abiding citizens, it only creates a law-abiding atmosphere and ensures that those who legelly own firearms have been pre-screened (this isn't perfect by any means) and can at least be readily identified if need be.

CG, The Canadian Gun Registration sounds like something I would be overjoyed to have here in the states. I think it would go far in bringing about a decrease in the rampart gun violence that currently goes unchecked in these United States. The constanly quoted 2nd amendment of our Constitution was writen in different times and situations. It is no longer a viable opition for life as we know it today, as far as I'm concerned, but lends itself as justification for appeasing some of people, some of the time!!!

Jaz: In the US, the Center for Disease Control, a federal agency, is becoming a monstrous government organization. The vehicle they are using in this bureaucratic empire-building is to reduce everything to a disease....spousal abuse, teenage runaways, terrorism, gun violence, industrial accidents, automobile deaths... the list goes on. Everything is a ''public health issue.'' Much of the U. of Sydney paper seemed to be guided by that underlying principle. If everything is a disease, and what has traditionally been called evil can be approached as something that needs to be ''cured,'' (by government, of course,) where does that leave human beings? And where does it take citizens if government begins to act on the assumption that, even though an individual may not have committed a single criminal act, he has this ''disease?''

The authors of that paper were both Chairs of the National Coalition for Gun Control, hardly objective commentators, as their manipulation of statistics demonstrates.

And the most telling excerpt from their manifesto is indicative of their attitude toward the citizen versus government:

''The public health approach to firearm legislation follows roughly the same model [as automobiles]: screening applicants before they are allowed to buy or own the product...This system of regulation applies to everyone who wishes to buy or possess guns--even those who have not previously broken the law or who have no intention of shooting anyone.''

And just who does the screening, and with what criteria? Graduate students designing psychological profiling tests (on a grant from the Center for Disease Control)? The local Police Chief, who has his own political forces to reckon with? Most cops I know are decent enough people, but essentially, bureaucrats with guns. How much do you trust them?

There are two approaches to law enforcement. The first is to catch the bad guys. The second is to order the world in such a way that being a bad guy is impossible. I fear the acolytes of the second tactic far more than I fear any criminal, anywhere.

And finally (for the moment), almost all these debates take place in the immediate wake of some notorious tragedy, from the shooting of James Brady to the Port Arthur massacre (which was committed with a long gun, according to the article). That is hardly the time for a dispassionate examination of the issues.

Where are the Aldous Huxleys of yesteryear?

Ian: You are mired in politics and red tape, especially with the division of powers between the federal government and the states. Logic never seems to play out in the US when it comes to the issue of firearms control. Maybe over time, but till then..... who knows?

Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?

Stereotyping and generalizing about the US, are we?

Yossarian and jeb.....get your own goddam material.

My post on gun control is on page 4 on april 17
Susan/Ingram -I never said that registering guns would make people do the right thing and the mass shooting in Virginia Tech was a troubled person and had bought that one handgun a month ago so he had plans ,there will be much more to this story to come.
Bill/Texas-what I'm saying there are gray areas ,you can't lump all firearms in the same category,and automatic/semi weapon has no use for a wildlife management ...sorry Bill I do tend to ramble on other facts and beliefs.
in a perfect world we shouldn't be having this discussion ,if no one had a troubled mind ,and yes if a person couldn't get a firearm but if they really want to kill and maim they will do it and theres always a black market for guns,explosives,poisons gases etc. so if there going to do it they will.

To CG: It is customary, in a civilized exchange of views, to address the points that the other speaker has made. Simply saying that someone is 'mired' in something or other, and accusing your opponent of being illogical, just means that you are incapable of defending your own position.

I'm interested to know why it was considered necessary to enshrine the right to bear arms in the American constitution. It seems to me that there are many healthy democracies in the world where this hasn't been deemed necessary. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be in other democracies the same level of private gun ownership and the same proportion of gun deaths that the USA experiences. There may or may not be a link, but it does make one wonder.

Ian, my apologies. I guess I misunderstood what you said, but I was defending your comments, not accusing you of being illogical. The US is mired in a political debate that will be endless, and the inability to legislate a national solution (based on your division of powers) is one of the deterents to a quick solution. Did not mean my comments to be interpreted as an attack.

And by the YOU to start my comment, I meant the US, not you as an individual.

Quite apart from the fact that I am awaiting the delivery of two splendid wine goblets from the Bendigo pottery....

We have a great suspicion and distrust of government in the US, and we share that with a number of countries, especially those which have broken from Mother England by force of arms. For whatever reason, places like the Russia, and particularly those who have parted from the UK amicably seems willing to tolerate a substantial deference to ''government,'' whatever that is, valuing order and personal, physical security above all else.

But it is rumored here that, during the last, entrenched days of the Nixon administration, that tricky dick tried to get the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division to take over Washington DC, and put it, and the US Congress, under martial law. Alexander Haig hints at this in his memoirs. Supposedly, the Commandant of the Eighty-Deuce said, 'What are you, nuts? There are neighborhoods in Washington that have more firepower than we do...and half our soldiers are from DC. They're not going to get into a firefight with their neighbors.' And thus was democracy saved in the United States.

I guess the lamps that once burned brightly in the old North Church Tower, to many, have lost some of their glimmer from the whitewash of revisionist thinking. 'Let it never be forgot'.

Thank you, Ian. I'd never heard that story about the Tricky One. I don't think the USA is alone in its distrust of government. It's interesting that, even though we elect our governments, we don't trust them.

I'm a tad bemused by your comment that some places value 'order and personal, physical security above all else'. Isn't the need for those things one of the strong arguments that is used to support the right to bear arms in the USA?

I hope your wine goblets give you pleasure!

Yes, Judy, but the distinction is between looking to someone else to provide that security or demanding the ability to provide it for oneself.