posted
Here's a little fact I uncovered this morning that casts doubt on the Jay's assertion that Baloo's last paragraph was 'silly.'
CNN employs Army Psych-ops personell. Didn't know that, did you?
What's Psych-ops for, you might ask? The dissemmination of selected information (read: propaganda), disinformation, and psychological warfare. They were extensively operative under the 'crisis' in Kosovo (O nuts, I'm starting to sound like DT!)
To paraphrase a line from ST:V, What does CNN need with a psychological warfare unit?
And how many other newsorganizations have them?
The more I learn, the more paranoid I become. Note:
Gingrich was in, Clinton was out, Anti-terrorism legislation was floundering. BOOM! Oklahoma City.
Colorado was just about to pass, by a wide margin, a concealed-carry permit law. BOOM! Columbine.
Trigger lock and further post-Columbine useless anti-gun legislation stalls in Congress. BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! Kid shoots another kid in Michigan, and a couple other loonies go at it, too.
I'm not saying it's NOT just a set of odd coincidences, but it IS odd...
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
"Clearly, a gun and a car are entirely different creatures."
True, but they have things in common that make the analogy valid. They both serve a nesecary purpose, they're both incredibly dangerous, and they're both the instruments of many deaths every year. The analogy stands.
You didn't quite understand my argument, Sol. The point was that theft DIRECTLY harmes someone, and that it serves no conceivable useful purpose. Therefore, it should be outlawed. This is contrasted to guns, where owning a gun does NOT harm someone, and serves a very useful purpose. Therefore, it should NOT be outlawed.
There are going to be people that break any law you can come up with. If you outlaw guns, there are still going to be people who have or get guns. And people who ignore one law are likely to ignore more than one law, and thus use the guns. But if you DON'T outlaw guns, those same people are going to have guns, but are far less likely to use them, since their potential targets might be armed as well. Does that make more sense?
"It's a matter of respect. If you believe everyone else is a closet homicidal maniac, of course you want to ban guns! If you believe that the majority of people are responsible for their actions, and that the responsible use and display of firearms under the right circumstances prevents crime and saves lives, then it makes no sense to ban them."
This is a facet of the typical liberal viewpoint. I, as a conservative, have faith in people's ability to do what's good for themselves, and believe that they are basically good. Liberals don't, and their attitude toward gun control as Baloo described above is a symptom of that.
------------------ You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
posted
Actually, it is liberals who believe in a good human nature and no gun regulations. It is the conservatives who believe in a fundementally bad human nature, and they would support removing guns for those reasons.
IP: Logged
posted
I seem to be saying this alot, but Frank's right. Conservatives, by definition, want a smaller, less restrictive government. If you want someone to have more freedom, you must trust them more.
Take welfare. Conservatives don't think people need it, because we believe that they CAN make it on their own, and have the evidence to back that up. Liberals, OTOH, DON'T think people can make it without help. Which one's more trusting in human ability and intelligence, now?
------------------ You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
posted
First, could you reference your source on the CNN/Psy-ops connection?
------------------ Dane
"Mathematicians have long held that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards would eventually reproduce the collected wisdom of the human race. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Silensky
posted
First, Baloo's assertion that anti-gun folks wait in delicious anticipation for the next child to be shot is silly.
And what the heck does that assertion have to do with the price of a pych-ops unit at CNN? Or with the price of oranges in Santa Monica for that matter?
posted
It seems to me that there are two sides, neither listening to the other.
I'll try to be as concise as possible. *L*
Guns by their nature are a tool of man. They are used to kill. There's no going around that. So, where is the tool needed and where is it NOT needed? Farms, where they need to cull animals? Yup, that's a good spot. For park rangers who may face dangerous animals? There's another good spot. In every home? Not necessary at all.
People have the right to protect themselves from robbers who are armed. However those same weapons that are understandably used for defence can also be used for offence. Here's the problem then. What is more important, a persons right to life or a persons right to bear arms? There's a case of attrition here. Lets say that every year (for example) 50 people die from madman related shootings. However lets also say that 5000 die from crime related shootings. (Illegal guns always occur). And lets also say that in that same year 3000 citizens are saved from death by their personal weapons.
The two figures that matter here are the 50 dead from madmen, and the 3000 saved. As much as I hate to say it, if 50 people die in any given year due to madmen, and 3000 people are saved then that is an acceptable loss. So I do agree that removing the tool would save lives when madmen go on shooting sprees. However in a violent society, it would also cost lives.
I bet both Republicans and Democrats are going to hate me now *L*. But partisan politics is rather crap
------------------ Samaritan: "A good hot curry will help heal your wounds. That is, unless your religion forbids it".
Man: (Eyes growing wide) "No religion forbids a good hot curry".
-From some movie.
[This message has been edited by Daryus Aden (edited March 09, 2000).]
posted
Sol: In all seriousness, we don't need to have so many cars around. Public transportation would work just as well, and it would reduce the number of car accidents and so on.
------------------ Frank's Home Page "This spontaneous stuff takes a little bit of planning." - John Flansburgh
posted
First, your right, my only source for anything is National Enquirer TV. I never read. In fact I have never read a book in my life, or a law joural, or a newspaper.
Still, my poor education is such that I can handle the remote well enough to switch from local news news station to local news station.
posted
Can anyone tell me how to get to the universe Omega is living in? You know, the one where I've seemingly put forth a list of reasons to ban guns.
------------------ "What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity." -- Camper Van Beethoven
[This message has been edited by Sol System (edited March 11, 2000).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
