This will be interesting I thiink...I'll respond to most points made...and Precis the ones that have no bearing.
Yes I have lived in the SF Bay area my whole, post-college, adult life...
All happened before I joined the site, so cannot add, nor relevant to the following;
Foreigners and traveling. Traveling is great - lots of interesting people and places out there. And the food. One thing that always jumps out at me is how they just don't put up with the lazy bums sponging off everyone else to the extent we do here. I'm also always surprised at the red tape and lack of freedom I encounter compared to here. Now I've only been to Europe (and just Paris) a couple of times, and those were business trips, so I can't really speak much of traveling there.
Okay, you're at a disadvantage for a start. Without going into a comprehensive and lengthy diatribe about French administration I'll keep it short and simple.
France is treated with barely disguised contempt by many in Britain and Germany. As a country they are a bureaucratic nightmare; like you'd never believe. Even the French don't get why it is so! Yes they are a seen as a lazy bunch of freeloaders by both Britain and Germany..As you're probably aware the (as was, common market, now European Union) was set up after the second world war..many believe that De Gualle liked the idea because it put France at a distinct advantage over the original member countries (UK didn't join until the 70's). France's prinicple industry is agriculture, they have a little engineering, but not a lot. Certainly nowhere near as much as Germany or the UK (even though the UK's engineering core is far less than it used to be).
France's red tape is ludicrous to biblical proportions. For example if I wanted to take a photo of the Eifel tower, that famous Paris landmark, and place it in a French owned magazine. I couldn't.. Unless I paid royalties to the local department that it's jurisdiction falls under; the electricity engineers who maintain the lights on it; anyone who was identified ; anyone who had any commercial interest in the tower. The paperwork woould never end..and the rewards so low it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
France isn't Europe though..Paris isn't representitive of France, although it's the capital. And as you've probably only seen it on business trips from the inside of a taxi, hotel room, departure lounge and the clients offices, it isn't exactly 'travel' is it?
I haven't been to many countries really, and mainly holidays..Kenya, three times, USA, once, Maldives, once, France Germany, Netherlands, Italy, UEA, Cuba. In no particular order.
Looking again, that is true. Shouldn't have made the assumption. But a determined person with a knife or car instead of a gun can still do a lot of damage. We need to do a better job of reaching those people.
The thing about guns is the deterrent. An armed population makes the tyrant as well as the criminal think twice.
Can you cite examples where that is so?
As one scenario, let's say some president decided he wasn't going to leave after he was termed out or lost an election, and also that the media and majorities of his party controlling the Congress sided with him. Everyone in all branches of the military would likely not go along, they wouldn't have the ability to level the entire country the way they did those few blocks in Philadelphia or Waco, and an armed population would be instrumental in ending the coup. To the point the plan probably wouldn't even go into effect.
I'm struggling with this; what evidence do you have historically or currently whereby a sitting president of the USA has failed to move out when he's lost the election or at the end of his two year term?
But I'm really more about the right to self defense than some futuristic need to vanquish a rogue govt.
A futeristic need with a presumably futeristic set of toys to play with....And self defence against another person who is armed to the teeth because they're defending themselves.....oh yeah...
Take a look at the world around us though. Just this year how many tyrants in the Mid-East were toppled by people, some with guns.
In round figures? None. Libya, Egypt, Tunisa, and currently Syria have had massive input from the west but mainly other arab states concious of their own vulnerbility. The people may have all got loud and revolutionary (Incidentally, that is a 'left' kind of thing,,revolution, the people rising against the incumbant dictator or monarch-see also Russia, France, Spain, certain African countries, and what do you know...The USA!), but the underlying muscle, intelligence and strategy was imported.
Someone else made light of the freedom fighters in Syria, but they will oust Assad, and sooner rather than later. With guns. I don't like the governements that have taken root in the aftermath of this, but that isn't the point. Some time, these new tyrants will also get the boot from an armed citizenry.
A couple of points: I didn't 'make light' of any thing...It's a dreadful thing happening over there..and it's interesting you call them freedom fighters; are the Taleban in Afghanistan freedom fighters also? Repelling an invading force? And what do you think (back to Syria) will happen when the armed citizens do eventually take over from Assan? Show us your deep understanding of the outside world and furnish us with your wisdom...I'm seriously keen to find out this one. Then I'll give my opinion of what I think will happen.
The idea a gun may be there is enough of a deterrent in nearly all cases. No one has attacked the school Obama's kids go to for example.
Nearly all? You're sure of that? Columbine...had an armed guard..VA Tech had it's own police force, also armed! Yoou keep bringing up Obama's kids..and myself and others have tried to explain why and also their probable qualifications and professionalism. Is it just Obama you have a beef about, or do you have a thing of any Presidents kids school having protection?
Yes, teachers and principals that want to go through a course and carry should be able to. If they shouldn't be trusted to handle firearms, they probably shouldn't be in the school anyway.
I thought this was a sick joke; but you're serious aren't you?
You're right; a teacher not able to handle a weapon shouldn't be teaching. They're clearly not intelligent enough...Hey, so why not give the weapon to a rayban and cammo wearing 'survivor' who feasts, talks and thinks on shit? Well, he would, but his vocabulary doesn't stretch that far...Oh wait, that might mean he's not intelligent enough to use a weapon...No!! Oh boy I resent this logic...it's soooo inconvenient.
As you're clearly one of the hard of thinking, and frighteningly actually believe what little thinking you do, I'll try to explain in simple terms.
Professional soldiers train hard, regularly..(You did read my synopsis of the SF soldiers/Body guard training didn't you?)
When is a teacher who is supposed to be the school rambo fit the intense training into teaching and teaching preperation..Quite apart from (I know Ben, I know..It shouldn't need saying but I'll make an exception for P*B) the prospect of a teacher facing their own student; Now yoou're going too say "well u hu, they'll go into protect mode and shoot the MF"...Probably not. They'll face a kid who they've known many years, may even go to the kids parents for dinner, or as in the case of the Newtown shooting, work with his mother. You don't really think things through much do you P*B? Please don't go into a meeting where all possibilities are discussed, you'll look silly.
Does fully vs semi-automatic matter? Really? You don't think there is a difference between one sqeeze per bullet vs an unending burst of bullets as long as the trigger is pulled makes a difference? Sheesh. If it doesn't matter and a bullet is a bullet, why the proposed ban on just certain guns instead of all guns?
I agree for once. I'd ban all guns. I'm glad we're on common ground.
Left vs right: again, the bigger the government one favors the more to the left they are. An all powerfull govt dictating everything with no freedom is furthest Left. Technically, anarchists - no govt at all - are furthest right. But we do need govt for some things, a small minimalist govt is preferred. Just like the one described in our US Constitution.
See comments passim...
Liberals? They people are not The Left, in that they mean well. They mostly form political opinions based on emotions and want to make everything 'fair' - not understanding everyone has a different amount of ambition, talent, perseverence, etc. They also don't look at history and realize their utopia is impossible and trying to get there by force won't work.
There are truly heroic people, who you're not fit to tie the boot laces of, who were liberal. The lads who gave their lives in WW2 were 'liberal'..wanting a decent world to live in. They wanted a fair world, is that too much to ask? Are you suggesting they were deluded idiots?
Yes they are entitled to that. And the rest of us are fully within our rights to ask CNN to get rid of this guy, and to critize the Dixie Chicks, not buy their records and not go to their shows. Freedom to express an opinion, or react to one, works both ways.
Re: Dixie Chicks, Hmmm, but it had the opposite effect didn't it? Galvanised, they concentrated their anger and frustration and made a hit recoord! In many ways, it put them on the map in the UK. All because they expressed an opinion contrary to what the fascists had. Sure, ask CNN to get rid of Piers Morgan; then you can slap the other fat headed rambos on the back and look for someone else to persecute...Jeeze, that has to get at least a small hard on, doesn't it?
It's just that the Conservatives typically don't rise up as a group and demonstrate or denounce someone for something they said so it seems strange when they do - but the Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, whatever you want to call them, do it all the time. So the Conservatives don't like the Dixie Chicks or this Piers person. I can name any amount of people the Libs have attacked over the years - sometimes they even bring whistles to campus lectures so the person that was invited to speak, but that they disagree with, can't even speak. When to the Conservatives act like this?
Oh, when they mobilise the military to invade countries (In any other case it would be an act of war) ; destroy it's economy, install it's own patsy leader, rape the resources, install a military base and sit back to watch the ensuing genocide...I agree, it isn't close to the desruption placades and a few choice chants can generate, but hey, you use the rescources you have to hand.
Or how about the reaction to the Tea Party. It was simply offensive to the Dems, Libs, and Leftists that the other side dared gather and rally and protest, yet, again, they do it all the time - they simply claim this solely for themselves.
Oh, and the fact the Tea party is almost wholly financed by the Koch brothers; the very capitalist 'NWO' bogey men the Tea party was, erm, demonstrating against... I know, you can't make it up can you?