RE: Gun Permits for the Blind

RE: Gun Permits for the Blind (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Gun Permits for the Blind (9/17/2013 4:07:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 What I disagree with is your interpretation of "culture", never mind boxing it as specifically "gun culture". Without reaching for any dictionary, my interpretation of "culture" is to mean it as something groups of people do - the good, the bad and the ugly of it. Well that's a fair enough definition, but our history of black slavery and contaminated race relations has given rise to two very different "gun cultures" in America. There is the traditional American culture of "legitimate and legal owners and users of guns, using guns for self-defense, sporting uses, hunting, and recreational uses," and then there is a dysfunctional predominanty black underclass culture of guns and violence which, despite representing only perhaps five percent of the population, is so insanely vicious that it accounts for fully half of our entire national homicide rate. To lump these two together simply ignores reality, tarring the former with the excesses of the latter and frustrating any attempt to solve the problem by denying that it exists. K.

Focus50 -> RE: Gun Permits for the Blind (9/17/2013 4:44:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Actually, did you really get rid of a federal government that needed to go, or did you just get rid of the people running the government? The Revolutionary War ended governance by England, giving way to a loosely united group of states each governing itself and little more. The US Constitution ended that original US Government, and created the Constitutional Republic we still have governing us today. Changing the President doesn't change the system of government here. Not sure what you're asking.... The way I understand it, if you want your say on who runs your country, your 2 choices are to vote either Republican or Democrat, yeah? Here we also have 2 major parties - the ALP (Aus Labor Party) and the Liberal/National coalition, better known as the Liberal Party. There are other choices of minor parties and usually a few independents managed to get elected but overall, there's only the two with a chance of actually governing. And they're an interesting pair. Historically, the Libs are favoured by business and the affluent whereas Labor is the working man's party, with strong union ties. The simple version is that the Libs manage the economy better and tend to govern for longer terms. They're like the 3 minute rounds of a boxing match. Labor is the creative party; the one with the grand ideas. The trouble with good financial managers (the Libs) is that voters eventually get bored with them. Enter Labor with ideas and energy - and an unfortunate art for pissing away taxpayer's money. So they tend to govern in shorter spells. Labor is like the one minute break between rounds of a boxing match. We need a spell from the Libs only to realise the main event is the actual boxing rounds. Where the Libs take their turn at getting voted out of office, Labor tends to get punted in landslides - as they did 10 days ago. This time round (from 2007), took them 6 years to turn a 5 billion dollar budget surplus (inherited from the Libs) into a 30 billion dollar deficit. The local stock market rose almost that much just on the election result. To answer your question (I think), the 2 parties form their own policies but those charged with administering such policy (bureaucracies etc) doesn't change with government. quote: If the populace isn't armed, there will be no ability to throw off a despotic government, if it becomes a necessity. I s'pose - but if there's never been that necessity, or even a hint of it? Eureka Stockade (1850 ish) comes to mind, though - a revolt against unfair governmental policy. Americans can relate; that particular government was the Brits way back then. It's even possible that your War of Independence may have had some historical influence on the Brits eventually backing down. But that was considered the beginnings of Aust democracy - that the armed revolt was the people against the government from a foreign land. There's been a time in your history where the people were agitating toward revolting against their own elected government? Focus.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gun Permits for the Blind (9/17/2013 5:21:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Actually, did you really get rid of a federal government that needed to go, or did you just get rid of the people running the government? The Revolutionary War ended governance by England, giving way to a loosely united group of states each governing itself and little more. The US Constitution ended that original US Government, and created the Constitutional Republic we still have governing us today. Changing the President doesn't change the system of government here. Not sure what you're asking.... The way I understand it, if you want your say on who runs your country, your 2 choices are to vote either Republican or Democrat, yeah? Here we also have 2 major parties - the ALP (Aus Labor Party) and the Liberal/National coalition, better known as the Liberal Party. There are other choices of minor parties and usually a few independents managed to get elected but overall, there's only the two with a chance of actually governing. And they're an interesting pair. Historically, the Libs are favoured by business and the affluent whereas Labor is the working man's party, with strong union ties. The simple version is that the Libs manage the economy better and tend to govern for longer terms. They're like the 3 minute rounds of a boxing match. Labor is the creative party; the one with the grand ideas. The trouble with good financial managers (the Libs) is that voters eventually get bored with them. Enter Labor with ideas and energy - and an unfortunate art for pissing away taxpayer's money. So they tend to govern in shorter spells. Labor is like the one minute break between rounds of a boxing match. We need a spell from the Libs only to realise the main event is the actual boxing rounds. Where the Libs take their turn at getting voted out of office, Labor tends to get punted in landslides - as they did 10 days ago. This time round (from 2007), took them 6 years to turn a 5 billion dollar budget surplus (inherited from the Libs) into a 30 billion dollar deficit. The local stock market rose almost that much just on the election result. To answer your question (I think), the 2 parties form their own policies but those charged with administering such policy (bureaucracies etc) doesn't change with government. Your party system is pretty much like the US system; two main parties and a bunch of others that, generally, have no chance of fielding a Presidential candidate with a legitimate chance of winning. Ross Perot was the last time a 3rd party even came close ('92/'92 running for the Independent Party). The Independent Party has a couple in Congress. The Libertarian Party will make noise, but generally gets nowhere. Many Libertarian candidates run on the Republican ticket to get elected. Ron Paul was an example of that. But, that wasn't what I was saying, exactly. You changed who was running your government. You changed who was making the rules. The system wasn't changed though. If we liken government to a boat, you changed who was at the helm, not the boat itself. quote: quote: If the populace isn't armed, there will be no ability to throw off a despotic government, if it becomes a necessity. I s'pose - but if there's never been that necessity, or even a hint of it? Eureka Stockade (1850 ish) comes to mind, though - a revolt against unfair governmental policy. Americans can relate; that particular government was the Brits way back then. It's even possible that your War of Independence may have had some historical influence on the Brits eventually backing down. But that was considered the beginnings of Aust democracy - that the armed revolt was the people against the government from a foreign land. There's been a time in your history where the people were agitating toward revolting against their own elected government? Focus. To my knowledge, there hasn't been any legitimate (that is, popular with a large enough portion of the population) call for changing the system of governance we live under. I'm sure the colonists originally wouldn't have thought it necessary, either. But, as time passes, we see more and more examples of the insidiousness of government intruding into our personal lives. If it ever becomes necessary to remove a tyranny, not having arms will make it pretty impossible. I'm no conspiracy theorist. I'm know my limitations better than anyone else, and I am at peace with them. In a revolution, I think I could serve best as a human shield, and I might not even do a good job of that. I fully believe the system created by the US Constitution is best. But, that requires a conservative interpretation of the Constitution (which was the interpretation of the Founding Fathers). Over the years, the interpretation of much of the wording has been manipulated (by whichever party finds it to their benefit to manipulate a meaning) to the point that what we have now isn't what we were intended to have. State Governments were supposed to have more authorities than the Federal Government. The Federal Government was intended to deal with things that effected the Nation as a whole, and external concerns. The internal, more individual concerns were to be the domain of the State Governments, or to the People themselves. One problem with government, in general, is that once they get into something, it's nigh on impossible to remove government from that something.

Focus50 -> RE: Gun Permits for the Blind (9/18/2013 4:21:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Well that's a fair enough definition, but our history of black slavery and contaminated race relations has given rise to two very different "gun cultures" in America. There is the traditional American culture of "legitimate and legal owners and users of guns, using guns for self-defense, sporting uses, hunting, and recreational uses," and then there is a dysfunctional predominanty black underclass culture of guns and violence which, despite representing only perhaps five percent of the population, is so insanely vicious that it accounts for fully half of our entire national homicide rate. To lump these two together simply ignores reality, tarring the former with the excesses of the latter and frustrating any attempt to solve the problem by denying that it exists. Well no, they're two sides of the same thing; the same culture. Or the Yin & Yang of guns.... As I said to Desi the other day (on obtaining a gun in the US): "And where there's a flourishing market for those legally entitled, there's a black market for those who aren't." That's basic market economics of anything that's desirable but subject to legal or governmental controls. Dunno if I'd be putting all the blame for US gun crime on a particular race in this age of mega profits to be made on drugs. With your overall gun culture (means and opportunity to obtain weapons) combined with your southern neighbour's determination to unload their product, yeah, I'd imagine you have more than your share of "insanely vicious" criminals. And the (non race related) drug cartel news occasionally filtering out of Mexico seem another level of vicious and insane again. Compared to pre Port Arthur, yeah, it's damned hard for honest Joe Citizen to get a firearm's licence here. But it is possible. And the same for our own criminals, I'd imagine. The big difference to the US would be opportunity. One of the big losers out of Port Arthur was gun retailers. Almost nowhere to buy a gun equally means there's almost nowhere for criminals to break in and steal guns. So, for example, there's been a few instances of armed security guards being targeted just to steal their gun. Focus.

Focus50 -> RE: Gun Permits for the Blind (9/18/2013 4:59:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri But, that wasn't what I was saying, exactly. You changed who was running your government. You changed who was making the rules. The system wasn't changed though. If we liken government to a boat, you changed who was at the helm, not the boat itself. Ahhh, the light bulb comes on.... lol Our system of government was inherited from the Brits, generally referred to as the Westminster system. It's evolved with the times but yes, we've only ever had the one system. Probably the biggest difference to your system is that the people only get to vote for a particular party. But we get no say on who leads each party; only the party does. So "our" elected PM has always been whoever was elected by the party that went on to govern. We had a fairly unique situation a few months before the recent election. That god-awful woman (Julia Gillard) was still PM and it was noted by several commentators that neither major party had the leader that the people wanted. The Libs are now in power and the PM is Tony Abbott - but the majority of voters would've preferred Malcolm Turnbull. And with Labor, Kevin Rudd was preferred by voters to that woman. He did actually take over going into the election but the Labor brand was mud by then.... There's a (painfully slow) movement toward a republic but it hasn't happened yet. Still a few too many influential oldies embracing the British monarchy, hence we still have a foreign nation's emblem stuck in the corner of our flag. And the whole flag itself is and always has been red, white & blue when it's generally accepted our national colours are green & gold. So I'm a proud Aussie who's not much for embracing our official flag - not even on the Australia Day holiday.... Our unofficial but popular sporting flag is the Southern Cross with the five stars gold on green background. I'd vote for that.... Focus.

Kirata -> RE: Gun Permits for the Blind (9/18/2013 5:27:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Well no, they're two sides of the same thing; the same culture. They are not even remotely the same culture, not even by your own definition of culture as something groups of people do, and ten minutes spent in some of our inner-city neighborhoods would make that apparent to anyone. quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Dunno if I'd be putting all the blame for US gun crime on a particular race... Well first of all I didn't. And second of all I'm not. These violent sub-cultures are predominantly black and to some degree Hispanic, but there is no intention on my part to tar all blacks or Hispanics. I've gone to school with, worked with, and had as neighbors blacks and Hispanics whose negative opinions of "that part of town" exceeded my own. They avoided it, and did their best to keep an eye on their children's choices of friends to counter them being infected by the values and attitudes characteristic of the violent and dysfunctional sub-cultures that thrive in those neighborhoods. In truth, it's not even a "white" versus "black" issue at all. Traditional American culture comprises blacks and Hispanics and people of every description who share its values, among them education, stable families, productive work, and appreciation for achievements that benefit society. There is nothing exclusively "white" about those values. They are evident among civilized people everywhere, despite the conceit of these aberrant sub-cultures that they're rejecting the "white man's" values. What they are rejecting is humanity's values, and their own humanity along with them. K.

PeonForHer -> RE: Gun Permits for the Blind (9/18/2013 6:47:07 AM)
quote: They are not even remotely the same culture, not even by your own definition of culture as something groups of people do, and ten minutes spent in some of our inner-city neighborhoods would make that apparent to anyone. This is one of those situations where you get two vantage points - the one that can tell the different trees apart from each other and see how each fits into the forest, the other that sees the forest and see how it fits into the geography around it. Two types of knowledge, perhaps two types of the lack of it. I'm willing to bet that most non-Americans using these boards will see gun culture written into American culture as a whole, K. The early pioneers, the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, the Civil War. Then cowboy and injun films, cops and gangsters . . . Culture and counter-culture.

Focus50 -> RE: Gun Permits for the Blind (9/19/2013 4:07:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Well no, they're two sides of the same thing; the same culture. They are not even remotely the same culture, not even by your own definition of culture as something groups of people do, and ten minutes spent in some of our inner-city neighborhoods would make that apparent to anyone. Wtf are you on about??? "Both" the cultures you're differentiating between have the same common denominator - guns. One is the law abiding element and the other isn't - two sides of the same culture. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Dunno if I'd be putting all the blame for US gun crime on a particular race... Well first of all I didn't. And second of all I'm not. These violent sub-cultures are predominantly black and to some degree Hispanic, but there is no intention on my part to tar all blacks or Hispanics. I've gone to school with, worked with, and had as neighbors blacks and Hispanics whose negative opinions of "that part of town" exceeded my own. They avoided it, and did their best to keep an eye on their children's choices of friends to counter them being infected by the values and attitudes characteristic of the violent and dysfunctional sub-cultures that thrive in those neighborhoods. Well here's where I got the "you did" and "you are" from.... Kirata: "and then there is a dysfunctional predominanty black underclass culture of guns and violence which, despite representing only perhaps five percent of the population, is so insanely vicious that it accounts for fully half of our entire national homicide rate." This "predominantly black underclass" - you mean "black" as in dark or demonic, not race? And btw, a disclaimer for you. Despite our personal CM history, I didn't mean to imply you were being racist. Frankly, I couldn't care less either way and so I wasn't judging you, just rolling with the discussion as I saw it. Surely you've noticed by now that I'm inclined to call anything as I see it (the lovely Chi knows lol). And speaking of race in a general sense, I can't be the only one tired of any attempt to discuss race inevitably ending in some precious fool hysterically screaming "racist". Or the perception that only whites are racist.... But I digress. I was simply doubting that it's mostly all the fault of the black's (as in people). But anyway, that's not how you meant it to start with? quote: In truth, it's not even a "white" versus "black" issue at all. Traditional American culture comprises blacks and Hispanics and people of every description who share its values, among them education, stable families, productive work, and appreciation for achievements that benefit society. There is nothing exclusively "white" about those values. They are evident among civilized people everywhere, despite the conceit of these aberrant sub-cultures that they're rejecting the "white man's" values. What they are rejecting is humanity's values, and their own humanity along with them. Seems you're quite the champion of multiculturalism.... Again, not judging - but I still wouldn't have thunk it. lol Not me - seems to me it creates more social tensions than harmony. I'm fine with foreigners as individuals but in localised numbers or loose enclaves, trouble's not far away. If it's racist to call what you see, guess I'm the bad guy.... <shrugs> Focus.

Focus50 -> RE: Gun Permits for the Blind (9/22/2013 5:19:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata They are not even remotely the same culture.... Surely I'm not to take the abrupt loss of communication as meaning you're conceding the point...? [:-] Focus.

thompsonx -> RE: Gun Permits for the Blind (9/22/2013 10:04:18 AM)
quote: what we have now isn't what we were intended to have. State Governments were supposed to have more authorities than the Federal Government. To which of the founding docments do you reference this opinion.

thompsonx -> RE: Gun Permits for the Blind (9/22/2013 10:12:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 What I disagree with is your interpretation of "culture", never mind boxing it as specifically "gun culture". Without reaching for any dictionary, my interpretation of "culture" is to mean it as something groups of people do - the good, the bad and the ugly of it. Well that's a fair enough definition, but our history of black slavery and contaminated race relations has given rise to two very different "gun cultures" in America. There is the traditional American culture of "legitimate and legal owners and users of guns, using guns for self-defense, sporting uses, hunting, and recreational uses," and then there is a dysfunctional predominanty black underclass culture of guns and violence which, despite representing only perhaps five percent of the population, is so insanely vicious that it accounts for fully half of our entire national homicide rate. To lump these two together simply ignores reality, tarring the former with the excesses of the latter and frustrating any attempt to solve the problem by denying that it exists. K. Is it possible that this "dysfunctional predominanty black underclass culture of guns and violence which, despite representing only perhaps five percent of the population, is so insanely vicious that it accounts for fully half of our entire national homicide rate"is in response to the same sort of visciousness perpetrated against them? quote: In truth, it's not even a "white" versus "black" issue at all. Traditional American culture comprises blacks and Hispanics and people of every description who share its values, among them education, stable families, productive work, and appreciation for achievements that benefit society. There is nothing exclusively "white" about those values. They are evident among civilized people everywhere, despite the conceit of these aberrant sub-cultures that they're rejecting the "white man's" values. Perhaps the above are not the "white man's values" that are being rejected.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125