ParanoiA

So, what's the answer? The "conscienceless monster with its only motivation an unquenchable desire for more and more profit" causes a lot of problems. Or maybe I have an aversion to it. I just listened to a "Town Hall" media meeting, an hour and a half in length, presented by one of our 5th line directors, lecturing about how being number one in virtually every category, with soaring profits is still not good enough. We are the biggest company in the freaking world at what we do. Talk about an unquenchable thirst. It makes me sick to be a part of it. They even go on about how our competition's purse is a joke compared to our resources. Many of these businesses are smaller, have been around for years in their respective areas. WE are the new guy - not them. Yet, they are characterized as "attacking" our company. Like we're some kind of noble entity that has come to liberate the masses - only to be attacked by local war lords. Some of us even looked at each other like "are they trying to make this sound like the war?". I just think it's disgusting.

So who protects the people from the corporations? I'm not talking about here at home. I mean, out there in the international arena. How do we keep from getting bombed and hated because of big business's bully tactics around the globe? Tom's Brake shop doesn't cause international outrage - Halliburton does. Greed is a managable problem, but we're not managing it. Our 401k's and cheap merchandise keep us, the consumers, from making the responsible decision and refrain from doing business with them. Wal-Mart would pillage the last remaining resources of the world if they could turn a profit from it. There is no internal conscience with big business, it seems.

I've spent considerable time on this forum defending capitalism, but I've always had a bad feeling about corporations. I work for one, so the hypocrisy on my part is noted and leaves me somewhat torn. The thing is, when people criticize capitalism - particularly internationally and how we are perceived across the globe, how we treat people in the world, the wars and complete irreverant and lobsided consumption of resources - it seems like it often comes down to corporations, not necessarily capitalism itself. Corporations don't really have a conscience and I'm not sure they're capable by design, or at least not the publicly traded ones. Nameless, faceless stock holders focused only on profit. CEO's could be this conscience, but they wouldn't last long as they're not solely interested in profit, so the results would reflect this. Did our founding fathers have big business and corporations in mind? Or did this escape their foresight?

Great post. But I would take issue with home schooling because it's not always about academics. There is social learning and development that requires interaction over the years of their education. Obviously I would never legislate such a thing as it's everyone's right to home school, but I wouldn't tout that as an achievment simply because it might result in high scores.

Dak, 39 states are conceal and carry that require licenses. California is not special. And only 2 states are unrestricted. You are not allowed to run around here with your gun like dirty harold... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry Is corrollation your only argument anymore? Switzerland also doesn't have a culture of violence that is worshiped and emulated by a huge percentage of the population - particularly teens, which notoriously have less respect for life and other's rights. You and SkepticLance keep ignoring this point over and over - no matter who posts it. Since when do we get our facts from activists? This would be like getting WMD facts from George Bush, would it not? I only wish I could find that site that listed home defense events in the US. Guns are used, quite frequently, to protect people's homes and families. Enough so that the ones who murder are a concern, and you can't get police to my house in time to stop them...only to process our bodies. Double this and double that will solve it huh? Sure, whatever, but it's more symbolism over substance. I prefer the thumb print safety, where the gun holder has to be identified by thumb print, and approved, before the gun will operate. This is quite sensible. Oh, and Dak...a gun is always loaded. My kids know this. My wife knows this. Anyone else who goes to the trouble to learn and teach about firearms, knows this. If you want a little light, ok, but everyone is supposed to understand that every gun is loaded and should be handled as such. That way you don't have accidental shootings. You simply don't allow the possibility of an "unloaded" weapon to discharge accidentally.

But you just said that I could predict their behavior. You said that a loud noise would likely run them off. You said that acting all subservient will likely not get me shot. Which is it? I'll tell you which it is. They are unpredictable. Which is why we need guns in our homes to help us save ourselves until the paid help arrives. We don't know what to expect. You cannot calculate they're only a burglar, or are only looking for quick money - a trip to the ATM - nor that they're going to terrorize your family for fun. Or just kill everyone like that video game they've been spacing out on. In our violent culture, we need protection from those who don't appreciate other's lives and death. And the only thing you can calculate or count on, with an intruder, is that they'll respect the force of a shotgun.

Then why is the federal government able to extort the states into adopting their ideas of education using the "money"? I haven't been following this kind of thing too closely, but I'm always hearing about the feds not having any power over the states in terms of education and so they're using "funding" to exert a sort of power. This technique was also used for the universal drinking age of 21 - using highway funds I believe. Just bringing it up because it sounds like they have more than just "little influence". I'm all for a system that allows me to divert my education taxes toward a private solution. For instance, I'd like for school personel to beat my son's ass when he won't behave instead of calling me at work and suspending him for stupid teenage things. I can't get the public school to do that.

I guess some reach the point of intellect where pride and heroism has no value. Playing the numbers is a statistical superiority - like machines. And it would be accurate to consider that trading emotions and individual thought would result in purely logic driven behavior. So what's the point of life, then? Any machine does that...

You'd think. But it blew right by me. I had inferred radio broadcasters, sorry. And I agree with the rest too.

Your partisan stripes are glowing in this statement. What is the problem with talk radio? It's quite focused on substative argument there. Moreso than any other media outlet other than perhaps these forums. I see why talk radio guys laugh at the left so much for the ineptitude to launch a successful liberal radio show without the government's help. Your statement is indicitive of the smug disregard for a platform the left simply doesn't own, therefore despises. Do you honestly believe your "corporate news" is better? The basic equivalent of Wal-Mart doing news coverage. It's a billion dollar business that also depends on ratings and exploits people's weaknesses and tragedies, under the prop of journalism. That's why they had a cute little thumbnail of an explosion with fire and debris in the lower right hand corner of the TV screen within minutes after the Oklahoma City bombing - and a caption "Terror in the Heartland". Yeah, Rush is so wacky...

You just nailed me. I was intimidated by those subjects in school. Now, I wish I had given it a chance.

Would someone else please chime in here? Who "feels taller" with a gun? Who "feels powerful" with one? You made this up or your conscience is speaking for you. Criminals will seek guns for necessity - with a degree of power and influence, sure. You're making this sound like we're all frothing like Gollum with the Ring. Please...you obviously are not a gun owner. And you're losing credibility in proving your ignorance about it.

Not bad. Good argument actually. But ( and you knew this was coming ), freedom to drive cars isn't a fundamental check and balance for the power of the government. Our system is dependent on that amendment. And yes you're getting on just fine. But I'll bet the Jews would take issue with that. The thing is, you don't know when your number's up. You don't know who or what country is going to turn on its people, or what will set it off or how it will happen. Incrimentally? Overnight? You can't look at the blue skies today and assume it will always be that way. You're really taking a lot for granted. And you really don't know how much that will or won't cost you in the long run. You may enjoy better numbers in terms of gun control today - but a couple of decades from now, you could be in a completely different position, like praying to Allah by law. Our system requires that amendment. We know the cost, and it's worth it.

Well you know..the white man has done so much evil in the world. How could anything not be our fault at this point?

I'm not sure if it's a leap or not, but I feel it too. I think they're seeing a corrollation between our approach to war and gun ownership. We seem like a bunch of trigger happy rednecks that dress up in camo and go to war to play with our testosterone toys, I suspect. Of course, when you see some of our soldiers and you hear them talk, tell their story or whatever, you see a completely different picture. These are some impressive folks. Maybe they're just playing to the cameras, or putting on a good front, but they come across quite professional to me. Courteous and intelligent.

Actually, I wasn't implying that it wasn't an ideal anywhere else nor to what degree. It is a trend here in America to punish those who out perform others. Maybe it's a trend that pales in comparison to other countries, but I'm not talking about them. I could care less and it's completely irrelevant to my point. The fact you took issue with it though, tells me you got my point and you don't have much to say in defense of redistribution except to point to others and say "we're not as bad as them". In keeping with the relatively newly adopted philosophy of punishing the rich with higher taxes and then continuing to blame them for all of our problems, despite their taking care of 90% of the total tax revenue, I don't see how grades are any different. People who exceed, obviously did it off the backs of someone else who couldn't help themselves. And now we have people wanting to get the extra funds for it too...the nerve. This shouldn't really be an issue. If a really smart person exceeds and earns an A, and some subpar student can only muster a D - then the A student should get a B and the D student get a C. After all, the A student has plenty of good grades. More good grades than he'll ever need. The D student is doing the best he can, and probably came from a background that isn't his fault and he certainly can't do it on his own. If redistribution is so righteous, then what's the issue?

Actually, America frowns on those who out perform others. That's why we redistribute wealth. In keeping with the american spirit of redistribution you should happily share your grades with those that are sub par. It isn't fair that you exceed their intelligence, now you want all of the money. Training the best to be better? Isn't that like advocating the rich to get richer? This is how the smart keep getting smarter, while the dumb just get dumber...

Sorry, you're wrong. Your take on gun owners is similar to an ignorant person's take on drugs and drug users. You sound like someone who's never owned a gun, but thinks they have a bead on those who do. People who have never done drugs, sound just as ignorant. They think they get it - I don't know if it's from TV, peers, conditioning - but those who don't know, sound like they don't know. I think what you're confusing "power and importance" for "security" in terms of responsible gun owners. Like I said before, as red blooded males we obviously want to protect our homes. My wife doesn't lock the doors - I do. My wife doesn't get up to check on creepy noises in the night - I do. Of course we're more concerned about guarding the pack, and desire the "power" to do so. This is good. We should do that. It's not about lust and some childish power fantasy. This is good ole fashioned survival instincts. But this power is not a lust for more of it, rather a reinstatement of the loss of power - a security aid. When someone breaks in my home and I don't have a gun, I'm vulnerable. If they have a gun, it's over, I'm powerless. If they don't have a gun, and I do, then yes I have the power - this is a good kind of power. The situation can now be diffused and my family is protected against potential slaughter and assault. If we both have guns, then the playing field is leveled. Neither has really more power than the other. Either way, this is not an unhealthy desire for power - it's about protecting ourselves from those who wield it to hurt us. The power and importance you're selling is the driver for gangbangers and etc. For them, it's about alpha male, getting their power back from a dismal life or abused past, perceived oppression by "the man" and etc. But you're trying to paint all of us that way.

Because you said: So, my point was, that simply because a certain behavior or lack of behavior results in an increase or decrease in crimes, is not a good enough reason to restrict freedom. Your logic is faulty. You can decrease crime by using the death penalty as the sole sentence for every petty crime. But that's not right is it? That's silly. Just because we'd be "safer", doesn't make it right to legislate it. Because, these weapons are not outlawed solely because it would "decrease crime", or "make us safer", they're outlawed because we can't demonstrate a need for these kinds of weapons as a general public when balanced against those points. That's the qualifier you need to add to your logic. Can we demonstrate a need for guns, in general, that tilts the balance towards that need over the sacrifice in safety and increased crime? I think we can. Yeah..imagine that. A country born of freedom - with an emotional aversion to oppression - trying to maintain that freedom and the individual liberties that makes life worth living. I'd rather die than do without the civil liberties that I enjoy everyday. There are many civil liberties that you enjoy, that endanger me. That's not unreasonable. That's a fact of life. How is my owning a weapon endangering the rights and liberties of you? The gangbanger with a gun is endangering the rights and liberties of everyone, including you, and would also do so with a knife, a slingshot, a car, a bomb - whatever the top weapon is that he can get ahold of. But how do I, a responsible gun owner, endanger your rights and liberties? How do you know I won't save your life when a madman starts mowing down a restaraunt we're dining in? Edit: Funny how the title of this thread is about how gun control advocacy didn't come up - and here we are going at it like it's the top news story...

Where I live, burglaries would be preferable to the home invasions that are on the rise. The difference between the two is that home invasions are about terrorizing the occupants. You don't know that loose gun control is the cause of the per capita murder rate. I'm sure it contributes, but to what extent? We also have a pop culture completely in love with violence. If knives were the top weapon, they'd promote it. They'd make knife guns, or screw with the engineering and come up with ridiculous flavors of bad ass knives. This violent attitude is the problem - and the reason the rest of us need our guns. Also, our system requires the second amendment. The armed people help to be sure our government doesn't turn against us. Don't under estimate the importance of such things. True enough. But it's better we prevent the oppression, not react to it. The amendment, simply being there, is enough to keep things in line. We take it for granted.

Ok...if it's no problem getting all the weapons we need then why do you care about gun laws? Honestly, that doesn't make any sense to me. Yes it would be a problem arming up. In fact, with better technology it would get harder and harder to arm up against them. Some would say the very act of toying with the second amendment, is the first act of an oppressive government. You may not mean to be oppressive today, but it has to start somewhere. Not to mention, you just admitted that it's no problem to get guns illegaly, supporting that only outlaws will have guns. So, why are you so adimant about getting guns out of responsible gun owner's hands?

I think he's making the point that surrendering ( I would say limiting ) your survival rights ( gun rights ) over to the police, puts an awful lot of trust into an entity that is not 100% trustworthy. Do you realize what you just glossed over and makes your point meaningless? Two things. One, that somehow we know an intruder is just a burglar. Seriously, I would love that and happily jump out a window. In fact, I'm not all that sure I'd be in a hurry considering the idea of buying all new stuff. And Two, that I can wake my family and get out in any covert fashion. Most families live in 3 bedroom homes and they're all 3 usually in use - sleeping. So you're talking about sneaking around from room to room waking up kiddos and the wife and not being seen or making any noise in the process - and then jump out of a window. That's practically impossible. Not to mention I'd expect them to check the rooms first anyway, after breaking in a home. And depending on the answer to number one, that could be a bad, bad thing.

From Wiki: First, note the drop in burlgaries. I didn't even realize the law was all that effective. I just thought it was a basic rights kind of law. Doesn't mean that's the reason, but still interesting enough. Now, I think the first line explains it. They just can't be prosecuted for using deadly force. That doesn't mean it isn't looked at by a jury. That doesn't mean you can shoot anyone who walks in your house - they have to be proven to be an intruder.

I don't know. No one agrees with their party 100%. So, to some degree they must be thinking for themselves. And some people might say they are one way or another because 70% of their beliefs are represented. Also, consider that ideologies are usually driven by themes ( or emotional aversions as one person put it... ), that result in ideas in the same basic direction. So, thinking for yourself could still result in lining up with your party's beliefs remarkably.