You shouldn't be able to just hold an election because someone has become unpopular.
But he was elected, whether the United States likes his politics or not.
This has nothing to do with his popularity or if the U.S. likes him or not. It has to do with his country wanting him out and his actions that overstepped his constitutional bounds.
But do not take my word for it, look at what these active military personnelare risking their lives to say. It is well within the bounds of their constitution to "recall by popular vote" an elected President. In fact, their constitution goes on to say that the people "shall disown any regime, legislation or authority that violates democratic values, principles and guarantees or encroaches upon human rights."
"This has nothing to do with his popularity or if the U.S. likes him or not."
I hope that the latter part of that phrase is true. Wouldn't want my country involved in ousting democratically elected leaders. Doesn't look good when your supposed to be the bastion of democracy.
Do you think it's possible to find an equal number of people in Venezuela who say exactly the opposite?
Perhaps, but we won't know if Chavez won't let there be a vote to see if he should be recalled by popular vote.
I'm to take the word of disgruntled soldiers?
Not alone, but when insiders as well as a lot of others are risking their life and property to speak out against this man, should we not listen and look into this further? How many "disgruntled soldiers" have publicly taken a stand against a president in our country and what where they risking?
How am I to know what their agenda is? That appears to be some anti-Chavez site.
Possibly, but does that alone make them wrong? Is it not possible that this is but one way to get a popular opinion out to the world? This man (Chavez) has put an awful lot of restictions on what can be said about him.
Wouldn't want my country involved in ousting democratically elected leaders.
How are we currently involved other than you and I discussing it in a forum in some obscure part of the web? Would you not agree that with 1.5 million signatures of people that want a vote on removing him that a true Democratic society (which they are supposed to be) would want to make sure that the people of that country can have that vote of yes or no without being afraid to cast an honest opinion of the man? Should it not be their vote that is all that matters in whether this man is ousted or not?
Dennis has absolutely NO idea of the causes of domestic violence. "Settling by means of force" is NOT what is important in domestic violence. Look it up. And as for walking home at night, I did it all of the time in Bosnia and never had a problem - but perhaps that was due to the uniform.
The point for women being armed is that by using a gun, they do not have to get within arm's reach of their assailant. They do not have to be faster, stronger, or trained in unarmed combat to effectively contain or eliminate the threat.Hence the nickname for guns "Equalizers".
Your supposition that IRAQ wouldn't attack anyone if left alone has proven to be false. Kuwait wasn't exactly giving them a hard time, now were they? With people such as Saddam, and some others, in power and still thirsting for more, well, being 'nice' will not work for THEY perceive it as 'weakness'. Sure, juvenile but you have to play to the audience you have and deal with others in the ways those others will understand. 'Strongmen' only respect strength.
Tying them up in knots only causes, as we have also seen, such people to fester like an unclean wound. You are liberty to regard it as 'weeding the garden' an unpleasant but necessary and back breaking chore that must be continually done to ensure the wellbeing of the whole.
Right now, you run the risk of appearing less articulate than Marylyn Manson
Thank goodness you're here to save me Rick, glad you've gotten over that condescending thing.
I've seen previews and interviews and a host of reviews so contrary to your "belief" I'm informed on the film and Michael Moore. I suppose you'll be heading out to see Santa Claus 2. I mean you should really be more informed on it before you decide not to see it less you run the risk of being less articulate of Tim Allen.
It would probably make you mad. I didn't care some of the more heavy handed parts, either. But some of it was pretty funny as well. Moore lets people hang themselves with their own rope. And he's very good at getting regular people to open up.
That's all you would have had to do was make a suggestion and tell me why, perhaps you get a cut of the box office take and that's why for some strange reason you want to shame people into seeing it. Or maybe you just like being condescending. I've heard your summation of it echoed by others, there aren't enough things in the movie to compell me to see it. O.K with you ? If you'd like you may debate with Marilyn Manson though anytime since he's possibly more articulate.
It's a rental. Definately. I don't have much time for movies so I have to be picky about what I go see. I'm not a big L.O.T.R afficianado but I'd like to see that on the big screen. Gangs of New York looks good too. Is it just me or has this been a pretty poor year for movies ? There just didn't seem to be that many good movies released.
is ANOTHER film I plan on missing. DeCaprio you see. He looks like he's twelve. Haven't actually come across anything this year that I would pay to see.
Some answers to your questions, and responses to your posted comments:
All impulses for violence originate in the same place, and they relate closely to a psychology of control over others. This is an individual phenomenon that crosses over into the social, and needs to be societally addressed (through education emphasizing tolerance and respect).
---
The notion that only one in ten Venezuelans supports Chavez, the duly-elected Caracas government, and the Venezuelan constitution, is an absurdity that's part of the massive disinformation campaign being waged in behalf of overthrowing a leader who's devoted to ridding his country of the oligarchic rule that's been Latin America's bane for many, very cruelly unjust years.
Chavez is being set up for Allende's fate for exactly the same reason. A viable alternative to native comprador/foreign imperialist rule would set a "dangerous example" for others.
In the absence of domestic and foreign plotting and economic sabotage, Chavez's plan for a "third path" between capitalism and communism could well prove eminently workable.
His idea -- supported by both Venezuela's majority poor and substantial parts of the middle class -- deserves a fair chance to show what it can do.
(A Washington-sanctioned "referendum" that violates Venezuelan due process, and which could easily be manipulated into a false result under orchestrated chaos, is unacceptable.)
I ask you all to place trust in the Venezuelan people's true will, and not gullibly accept as oracular supposed statements from sources that, in many cases, don't even actually exist, being part of the unprecedented fabrication that's being spun by those desperate to thwart the profoundly democratic populism inspired by Hugo Chavez.
---
Basing any imagined, current foreign threat by Iraq on what happened to Kuwait is invalid.
Kuwait is an arbitrarily-created "national entity" that always was a part of the Mesopatamian whole from which modern Iraq emerged. It owes its existence to a line drawn on the map by a colonial official serving British oil interests, several decades ago.
Prior to being invaded by Iraq in the prelude to the Gulf War, Kuwait was being used for so-called "slant drilling" that allowed Iraqi oil to be stolen from across the Kuwaiti border.
Iraq acted on that combined basis, in a diplomatic environment in which mixed signals from Washington led Saddam to believe an invasion of Kuwait could be gotten away with.
None of these factors apply to any nation on Iraq's frontier today.
Do you honestly think Iraq is fixing to attack Syria, say? Or Turkey?
The only aggression being eyed by anyone is that which Bush's warhawks are so fervently planning.
---
By what reasonable rationale can a nation which possesses and has used weapons of mass destruction on a scale that we have...get into any sort of a moral huff if and when other countries develop such arms, as part of their defensive needs?
Go over to the Iraq War thread and see how some of our own, top corporations illegally helped Iraq develop WMD capacity.
How can we now condemn Iraq, and invade it in a slaughter that'll kill masses of civilians, when we ourselves gave Saddam what we hypocritically try to portray as a pretext for attacking "him"?
There should be no illusions about what has happened in the past fortnight: Venezuelan workers were not on strike, nor do the opposition have overwhelming public support as the media claim, and this was not a valiant democratic campaign for free elections against an autocratic government. On the contrary, the country has been subjected to a systematic plan of sabotage and subversion designed to provoke chaos and justify a coup or an intervention by the US under the "Democratic Charter" of the OAS (Organisation of American States). This was a re-run of events leading up to the April coup, when a similar lockout and conflict centred on PDVSA culminated in a mass opposition march on the presidential palace and a mysterious shoot-out causing over 20 deaths, which were immediately blamed on Chávez and served as the pretext for the April 11 coup. The coup leaders (and the world) were astonished by the massive response of the Venezuelan people who took to the streets to demand the release of Chávez and the swift action of the loyal majority in the military leading to his restoration on April 13-14. But the government's extreme tolerance allowed the same reactionary coalition to regroup and to attempt a repeat in December. This time they failed, and it seems that the government has learnt its lesson and will not be surprised again...
It is frequently said, even in the progressive media, that for all his promises and popularity Chávez has done nothing to improve the life of the poor in Venezuela. Nothing could be further from the truth: despite all kinds of political and legal roadblocks invented by the opposition, he has nearly tripled the education and health budgets, has introduced a special programme of Bolivarian Schools organised (but not run) by the military for poor children, public works programmes by the military in poor neighbourhoods, micro-credit for small farmers, a new Women's Development Bank, support for new housing projects organised and run by local communities with state aid, and above all, support for ordinary people to take control of their own affairs and organise to take power at all levels through participatory democracy. It is this which the Venezuelan oligarchy cannot tolerate, and this, together with his nationalist economic and foreign policies, which is so dangerous in the eyes of Washington...
Here's hopin' Santa and the M&M dude don't faint on your floor.
Oh man, that would be cool! My boys would love to find Santa passed out on the living room floor.
Speaking of my boys and Santa. I think the eight year old is on the verge of discovering the truth about Santa. He's been asking questions and saying it just doesn't make sense to him, the whole Santa thing.
There was something totally unrelated to guns, that as I thought about it, made it related to guns. My own perception or real?
A few days ago, there were reports of a poll that was done. They asked people if they supported going to war in Iraq. They also asked the people how many of the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq. Some of the respondents replied that they thought some of the 9/11 terrorists were indeed from Iraq, even though none of them were. Some analysts then used this to show that people don't even know what is going on around them, but they still support a war in Iraq, either unilaterally, or with U.N. backing.
How does this relate to firearms? How many times have you seen a poll that shows a number of people support an assault weapons ban to be a majority? How many times have you seen a poll asking people to describe what an assault weapon really is?
How many times have you seen a poll asking whether people support gun control? How many times have you seen a poll asking people what gun control laws we already have on the books?
It seems that some analysts who do not support any war in Iraq, with or without U.N. backing, are using the poll on how many 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq, to discredit the poll that shows a majority of Americans support a war in Iraq, either with or without U.N. backing.
Can you imagine the left playing this same game with gun control polls? I can't.
Some of the respondents replied that they thought some of the 9/11 terrorists were indeed from Iraq, even though none of them were
victims of disinfotainment.
It's like the way they studied how knowledgable people who listen to talk radio are about the issues being talked about. Limbaugh veiwer were found to think that they were the most informed, but questioning revealed that they were actually the least informed, or more correctly, the most disinformed.
I don't recall ever seeing a poll on gun control. Do you think people in the United States are ignorant of matters related to firearms?
What level of technical knowledge do you think they need to posses before they're allowed to form an opinion? Is this akin to people not being allowed to comment on the military unless they've served in a branch at some time?
Your poll questions you want to have asked seem kind of open-ended and subject to multiple interpretations. How could someone conduct a poll like that? Why do you think it's necessary?
I've seen plenty of gun advocates get pretty haughty, daring people to define what an assualt weapon is. Finally the gun advocate becomes exasperated and hits them with a flood of terminology and technical jargon. They then proceed to dismiss their opinion based on their astonishing ignorance.
I don't recall ever seeing a poll on gun control. Do you think people in the United States are ignorant of matters related to firearms?
I've seen plenty of gun advocates get pretty haughty, daring people to define what an assualt weapon is. Finally the gun advocate becomes exasperated and hits them with a flood of terminology and technical jargon. They then proceed to dismiss their opinion based on their astonishing ignorance.
There have not been any recent polls regarding gun control. The last one I remember was just after Columbine. I thought it was a Newsweek poll, but I really don't remember off of the top of my head.
I do believe that many people who are pro gun control, or anti gun, don't really know much about firearms in general, and don't have a very good grasp on the amount of laws we already have regarding the control of firearms sales and possession in the U.S. They respond emotionally to issues regarding guns, because they don't like them.
I certainly believe that if you could round up a thousand people who are anti gun or for more gun control, and asked them to define an assault weapon, they would have a hard time doing it, but they would definitely be against them.
As an example, and I have seen this first hand, take some people who own guns for hunting, but are against assault weapons, and have little knowledge of assault weapons. The Colt AR15 looks like an M16, so these people would be against that if you just showed them a picture and asked if citizens should be allowed to own this AR15. However, if you showed them a picture of a Ruger Mini14, and asked them if they think that citizens should be able to own this Mini14, they would say "no problem", because it doesn't look like a military firearm. What is the functional difference between an AR15 and a Mini14? They both fire .223. They are both semiautomatics. They both take a detachable magazine. The only difference is in looks. Thus you have a law that bans some weapons that look one way, and you don't ban weapons that look a different way, even though they perform the exact same way. This is what I mean.
It is very easy for the media or polling organizations to use the misperceptions of the poll participants to move agendas forward. The media has several times hightlighted polls that show Americans are in favor of the Assault Weapons ban, even though that ban affects the AR15, but not the Mini14, so of what use is the ban?
In the case of the war in Iraq, there are people who are not in favor of a war, who are using the misperceptions of people (on how many 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq), to show that the majority of participants who believe we should go to war, whether with or without UN backing, are just confused about the issue.
Yes. You're reading like another haughty gun advocate who thinks everyone should have the same level of interest you have.
How about this. They're all weapons. They can all be used to commit some of the 11,000 plus gun murders the United States has every years. Know how many Canada has? -- coupla hundred. And we have much the same gun laws and the same noble hunting culture,
How much do people need to know before you will allow them to have an opinion?
and if you take away guns, murders will be committed with knives, rick. come out into the real world. i still wanna know where the uproar is when a kid goes into a school with a knife and injures or kills a dozen people. think it doesn't happen? think again. it did. a couple of years ago.
And we have much the same gun laws and the same noble hunting culture,
thanks for shooting your own argument in the foot. if we both have much the same gun laws and the same noble hunting culture, and yet the canadian per-capita murder rate is an order of magnitude or so lower than the united statesian murder rate, then obviously its not the fault of the gun.
What was my argument? I don't think I was arguing for or against gun control. But I'm sure there's more guns in the US to the tune several hundred million. .
The Canada comparison poses some pretty compelling questions, though.
how many people is a gun going to kill sitting out on the table, crabgrass? its an inanimate object! it takes some other external force to make it kill. the fault is with the person who pulls the damn trigger.
You shouldn't be able to just hold an election because someone has become unpopular.
But he was elected, whether the United States likes his politics or not.
This has nothing to do with his popularity or if the U.S. likes him or not. It has to do with his country wanting him out and his actions that overstepped his constitutional bounds.
But do not take my word for it, look at what these active military personnelare risking their lives to say. It is well within the bounds of their constitution to "recall by popular vote" an elected President. In fact, their constitution goes on to say that the people "shall disown any regime, legislation or authority that violates democratic values, principles and guarantees or encroaches upon human rights."
Do you think it's possible to find an equal number of people in Venezuela who say exactly the opposite? I'm to take the word of disgruntled soldiers?
How am I to know what their agenda is? That appears to be some anti-Chavez site.
"This has nothing to do with his popularity or if the U.S. likes him or not."
I hope that the latter part of that phrase is true. Wouldn't want my country involved in ousting democratically elected leaders. Doesn't look good when your supposed to be the bastion of democracy.
Do you think it's possible to find an equal number of people in Venezuela who say exactly the opposite?
Perhaps, but we won't know if Chavez won't let there be a vote to see if he should be recalled by popular vote.
I'm to take the word of disgruntled soldiers?
Not alone, but when insiders as well as a lot of others are risking their life and property to speak out against this man, should we not listen and look into this further? How many "disgruntled soldiers" have publicly taken a stand against a president in our country and what where they risking?
How am I to know what their agenda is? That appears to be some anti-Chavez site.
Possibly, but does that alone make them wrong? Is it not possible that this is but one way to get a popular opinion out to the world? This man (Chavez) has put an awful lot of restictions on what can be said about him.
Wouldn't want my country involved in ousting democratically elected leaders.
How are we currently involved other than you and I discussing it in a forum in some obscure part of the web? Would you not agree that with 1.5 million signatures of people that want a vote on removing him that a true Democratic society (which they are supposed to be) would want to make sure that the people of that country can have that vote of yes or no without being afraid to cast an honest opinion of the man? Should it not be their vote that is all that matters in whether this man is ousted or not?
No, I am not wrong, Dennis.
Dennis has absolutely NO idea of the causes of domestic violence. "Settling by means of force" is NOT what is important in domestic violence. Look it up. And as for walking home at night, I did it all of the time in Bosnia and never had a problem - but perhaps that was due to the uniform.
The point for women being armed is that by using a gun, they do not have to get within arm's reach of their assailant. They do not have to be faster, stronger, or trained in unarmed combat to effectively contain or eliminate the threat.Hence the nickname for guns "Equalizers".
Your supposition that IRAQ wouldn't attack anyone if left alone has proven to be false. Kuwait wasn't exactly giving them a hard time, now were they? With people such as Saddam, and some others, in power and still thirsting for more, well, being 'nice' will not work for THEY perceive it as 'weakness'. Sure, juvenile but you have to play to the audience you have and deal with others in the ways those others will understand. 'Strongmen' only respect strength.
Tying them up in knots only causes, as we have also seen, such people to fester like an unclean wound. You are liberty to regard it as 'weeding the garden' an unpleasant but necessary and back breaking chore that must be continually done to ensure the wellbeing of the whole.
Only in America could anyone make a film like "Bowling for Columbine."
Saw it tonight. If you're going to see it, wait until after Chrstmas, because it will make you a feel little sad.
We're a fearful people. And it doesn't have to be that way.
Never heard of it, Rick
But then, its probably a movie I will miss seeing through willfull dislike of its subject matter or treatment.
It raises more questions than it answers.
But you have a certain affection for Canadians after it's over.
Michael Moore.......Pffft.
I think you ought to see the film before you do that.
Right now, you run the risk of appearing less articulate than Marylyn Manson, who, in the movie sounded like a fairly thoughtful guy.
Thank goodness you're here to save me Rick, glad you've gotten over that condescending thing.
I've seen previews and interviews and a host of reviews so contrary to your "belief" I'm informed on the film and Michael Moore. I suppose you'll be heading out to see Santa Claus 2. I mean you should really be more informed on it before you decide not to see it less you run the risk of being less articulate of Tim Allen.
The suggestion stands, nonetheless.
It would probably make you mad. I didn't care some of the more heavy handed parts, either. But some of it was pretty funny as well. Moore lets people hang themselves with their own rope. And he's very good at getting regular people to open up.
That's all you would have had to do was make a suggestion and tell me why, perhaps you get a cut of the box office take and that's why for some strange reason you want to shame people into seeing it. Or maybe you just like being condescending. I've heard your summation of it echoed by others, there aren't enough things in the movie to compell me to see it. O.K with you ? If you'd like you may debate with Marilyn Manson though anytime since he's possibly more articulate.
Take a gander at the web-site.
Flash Intro: http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/flash-01.php
Main Page: http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/home.php
Michael's main page: http://www.michaelmoore.com/
I'll probably watch it when it comes out on video.
It's good to know your enemy, if you know what I mean?
It's a rental. Definately. I don't have much time for movies so I have to be picky about what I go see. I'm not a big L.O.T.R afficianado but I'd like to see that on the big screen. Gangs of New York looks good too. Is it just me or has this been a pretty poor year for movies ? There just didn't seem to be that many good movies released.
Gangs of New York
is ANOTHER film I plan on missing. DeCaprio you see. He looks like he's twelve. Haven't actually come across anything this year that I would pay to see.
Some answers to your questions, and responses to your posted comments:
All impulses for violence originate in the same place, and they relate closely to a psychology of control over others. This is an individual phenomenon that crosses over into the social, and needs to be societally addressed (through education emphasizing tolerance and respect).
---
The notion that only one in ten Venezuelans supports Chavez, the duly-elected Caracas government, and the Venezuelan constitution, is an absurdity that's part of the massive disinformation campaign being waged in behalf of overthrowing a leader who's devoted to ridding his country of the oligarchic rule that's been Latin America's bane for many, very cruelly unjust years.
Chavez is being set up for Allende's fate for exactly the same reason. A viable alternative to native comprador/foreign imperialist rule would set a "dangerous example" for others.
In the absence of domestic and foreign plotting and economic sabotage, Chavez's plan for a "third path" between capitalism and communism could well prove eminently workable.
His idea -- supported by both Venezuela's majority poor and substantial parts of the middle class -- deserves a fair chance to show what it can do.
(A Washington-sanctioned "referendum" that violates Venezuelan due process, and which could easily be manipulated into a false result under orchestrated chaos, is unacceptable.)
I ask you all to place trust in the Venezuelan people's true will, and not gullibly accept as oracular supposed statements from sources that, in many cases, don't even actually exist, being part of the unprecedented fabrication that's being spun by those desperate to thwart the profoundly democratic populism inspired by Hugo Chavez.
---
Basing any imagined, current foreign threat by Iraq on what happened to Kuwait is invalid.
Kuwait is an arbitrarily-created "national entity" that always was a part of the Mesopatamian whole from which modern Iraq emerged. It owes its existence to a line drawn on the map by a colonial official serving British oil interests, several decades ago.
Prior to being invaded by Iraq in the prelude to the Gulf War, Kuwait was being used for so-called "slant drilling" that allowed Iraqi oil to be stolen from across the Kuwaiti border.
Iraq acted on that combined basis, in a diplomatic environment in which mixed signals from Washington led Saddam to believe an invasion of Kuwait could be gotten away with.
None of these factors apply to any nation on Iraq's frontier today.
Do you honestly think Iraq is fixing to attack Syria, say? Or Turkey?
The only aggression being eyed by anyone is that which Bush's warhawks are so fervently planning.
---
By what reasonable rationale can a nation which possesses and has used weapons of mass destruction on a scale that we have...get into any sort of a moral huff if and when other countries develop such arms, as part of their defensive needs?
Go over to the Iraq War thread and see how some of our own, top corporations illegally helped Iraq develop WMD capacity.
How can we now condemn Iraq, and invade it in a slaughter that'll kill masses of civilians, when we ourselves gave Saddam what we hypocritically try to portray as a pretext for attacking "him"?
http://dev.alternatives.ca/breve12.html
There should be no illusions about what has happened in the past fortnight: Venezuelan workers were not on strike, nor do the opposition have overwhelming public support as the media claim, and this was not a valiant democratic campaign for free elections against an autocratic government. On the contrary, the country has been subjected to a systematic plan of sabotage and subversion designed to provoke chaos and justify a coup or an intervention by the US under the "Democratic Charter" of the OAS (Organisation of American States). This was a re-run of events leading up to the April coup, when a similar lockout and conflict centred on PDVSA culminated in a mass opposition march on the presidential palace and a mysterious shoot-out causing over 20 deaths, which were immediately blamed on Chávez and served as the pretext for the April 11 coup. The coup leaders (and the world) were astonished by the massive response of the Venezuelan people who took to the streets to demand the release of Chávez and the swift action of the loyal majority in the military leading to his restoration on April 13-14. But the government's extreme tolerance allowed the same reactionary coalition to regroup and to attempt a repeat in December. This time they failed, and it seems that the government has learnt its lesson and will not be surprised again...
It is frequently said, even in the progressive media, that for all his promises and popularity Chávez has done nothing to improve the life of the poor in Venezuela. Nothing could be further from the truth: despite all kinds of political and legal roadblocks invented by the opposition, he has nearly tripled the education and health budgets, has introduced a special programme of Bolivarian Schools organised (but not run) by the military for poor children, public works programmes by the military in poor neighbourhoods, micro-credit for small farmers, a new Women's Development Bank, support for new housing projects organised and run by local communities with state aid, and above all, support for ordinary people to take control of their own affairs and organise to take power at all levels through participatory democracy. It is this which the Venezuelan oligarchy cannot tolerate, and this, together with his nationalist economic and foreign policies, which is so dangerous in the eyes of Washington...
Merry Christmas, Dennis.
:-)
And the same to you, pal.
Here's hopin' Santa and the M&M dude don't faint on your floor.
Here's hopin' Santa and the M&M dude don't faint on your floor.
Oh man, that would be cool! My boys would love to find Santa passed out on the living room floor.
Speaking of my boys and Santa. I think the eight year old is on the verge of discovering the truth about Santa. He's been asking questions and saying it just doesn't make sense to him, the whole Santa thing.
Mmmmm....M&M dude! Crispy, plain, peanut, almond, or peanut butter?
Happy Holidays folks! I've had a fun first year talking to everyone in here.
There was something totally unrelated to guns, that as I thought about it, made it related to guns. My own perception or real?
A few days ago, there were reports of a poll that was done. They asked people if they supported going to war in Iraq. They also asked the people how many of the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq. Some of the respondents replied that they thought some of the 9/11 terrorists were indeed from Iraq, even though none of them were. Some analysts then used this to show that people don't even know what is going on around them, but they still support a war in Iraq, either unilaterally, or with U.N. backing.
How does this relate to firearms? How many times have you seen a poll that shows a number of people support an assault weapons ban to be a majority? How many times have you seen a poll asking people to describe what an assault weapon really is?
How many times have you seen a poll asking whether people support gun control? How many times have you seen a poll asking people what gun control laws we already have on the books?
It seems that some analysts who do not support any war in Iraq, with or without U.N. backing, are using the poll on how many 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq, to discredit the poll that shows a majority of Americans support a war in Iraq, either with or without U.N. backing.
Can you imagine the left playing this same game with gun control polls? I can't.
so...how many gun rights advocates are against the war on "weapons" based on the right to have them?
victims of disinfotainment.
It's like the way they studied how knowledgable people who listen to talk radio are about the issues being talked about. Limbaugh veiwer were found to think that they were the most informed, but questioning revealed that they were actually the least informed, or more correctly, the most disinformed.
Joel:
I don't recall ever seeing a poll on gun control. Do you think people in the United States are ignorant of matters related to firearms?
What level of technical knowledge do you think they need to posses before they're allowed to form an opinion? Is this akin to people not being allowed to comment on the military unless they've served in a branch at some time?
Your poll questions you want to have asked seem kind of open-ended and subject to multiple interpretations. How could someone conduct a poll like that? Why do you think it's necessary?
I've seen plenty of gun advocates get pretty haughty, daring people to define what an assualt weapon is. Finally the gun advocate becomes exasperated and hits them with a flood of terminology and technical jargon. They then proceed to dismiss their opinion based on their astonishing ignorance.
few people are as ill-informed as you, crabs. fold may be the only one.
I have enough information about you to be comfortable in disregarding this entirely.
disregard me all you want. That won't really help you any, though.
well, I won't hurt me either.
and regarding you is obviously of no help, so it's not like I'm gonna be missing out on anything
well, I won't hurt me either. It will. You just won't realize it.
I'll just have to risk it then
I love when Liberals disregard others.
It wins Republicans elections.
nah, most three year olds aren't nearly so disingenuous
hey everybody, crabs can use big words!!!
okay,
it ISlike talking to a three year old
heheheheheheheh..............
oh yeah. definitely like talking to a 3 year old. maybe a 2 and a half year old.
you guys just don't know how to have fun.
There have not been any recent polls regarding gun control. The last one I remember was just after Columbine. I thought it was a Newsweek poll, but I really don't remember off of the top of my head.
I do believe that many people who are pro gun control, or anti gun, don't really know much about firearms in general, and don't have a very good grasp on the amount of laws we already have regarding the control of firearms sales and possession in the U.S. They respond emotionally to issues regarding guns, because they don't like them.
I certainly believe that if you could round up a thousand people who are anti gun or for more gun control, and asked them to define an assault weapon, they would have a hard time doing it, but they would definitely be against them.
As an example, and I have seen this first hand, take some people who own guns for hunting, but are against assault weapons, and have little knowledge of assault weapons. The Colt AR15 looks like an M16, so these people would be against that if you just showed them a picture and asked if citizens should be allowed to own this AR15. However, if you showed them a picture of a Ruger Mini14, and asked them if they think that citizens should be able to own this Mini14, they would say "no problem", because it doesn't look like a military firearm. What is the functional difference between an AR15 and a Mini14? They both fire .223. They are both semiautomatics. They both take a detachable magazine. The only difference is in looks. Thus you have a law that bans some weapons that look one way, and you don't ban weapons that look a different way, even though they perform the exact same way. This is what I mean.
It is very easy for the media or polling organizations to use the misperceptions of the poll participants to move agendas forward. The media has several times hightlighted polls that show Americans are in favor of the Assault Weapons ban, even though that ban affects the AR15, but not the Mini14, so of what use is the ban?
In the case of the war in Iraq, there are people who are not in favor of a war, who are using the misperceptions of people (on how many 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq), to show that the majority of participants who believe we should go to war, whether with or without UN backing, are just confused about the issue.
Does that clear up my thought process?
Yes. You're reading like another haughty gun advocate who thinks everyone should have the same level of interest you have.
How about this. They're all weapons. They can all be used to commit some of the 11,000 plus gun murders the United States has every years. Know how many Canada has? -- coupla hundred. And we have much the same gun laws and the same noble hunting culture,
How much do people need to know before you will allow them to have an opinion?
Why buy a gun that looks like a military rifle?
and if you take away guns, murders will be committed with knives, rick. come out into the real world. i still wanna know where the uproar is when a kid goes into a school with a knife and injures or kills a dozen people. think it doesn't happen? think again. it did. a couple of years ago.
And we have much the same gun laws and the same noble hunting culture,
thanks for shooting your own argument in the foot. if we both have much the same gun laws and the same noble hunting culture, and yet the canadian per-capita murder rate is an order of magnitude or so lower than the united statesian murder rate, then obviously its not the fault of the gun.
What was my argument? I don't think I was arguing for or against gun control. But I'm sure there's more guns in the US to the tune several hundred million. .
The Canada comparison poses some pretty compelling questions, though.
where is the fault then?
What was my argument?
I read it as you didn't give a damn about gun ownership rights.
where is the fault then?
Prevent forrest fires, ban matches.
It's obviously the person using the gun.
where is the fault then?
how many people is a gun going to kill sitting out on the table, crabgrass? its an inanimate object! it takes some other external force to make it kill. the fault is with the person who pulls the damn trigger.
but both Canada and USA have persons
where is the fault in America that causes the disproportionate gun murder.
JT,
Please slam your head on the desk for the rest of us..000000000000