Gun play?

[Sayyid]

No, it's just this notion that Obama was brought up poor. He wasn't and as far as I know he never had a part time job to pay for his pot habit or his cigarettes.

Frankly, who gives a damn? I care about the president's policies, not whether he had a part-time job paying groceries at the local Safeway. I didn't give a damn either that Bush was alleged to have used cocaine or whatever. Even if he used cocaine while in office, that wouldn't be what made him a bad president (or good, depending on your view of him).

But did Obama really smoke pot? That's awesome. Maybe he'll be a little more sympathetic to the push for legalization. One can dream.

 

[BiBunny]

I think the only "wrong" part was in characterizing it as a rural phenomenon.

It's very "in." Xenopobia and fuck the bottom of the rung, where's mine?

Yep. No doubt about it.

In fact, if I were to pinpoint this, the most societally destructive current I think we've got going, it lives in the 'burbs much more than in the rust belt.

Holy shit. Somebody finally said it!

And people treated the market like Dominionists treat God, but that's OK? There are a lot of really messed up ideologies to cling to, and a lot of frustrations to go around.

Absolutely.

 

[JMohegan]

Some things are matters of impression, and others are just empirical facts. Fortunately, the idiotic notion that Democrats are elitist fat cats, looking down their noses at the "real people" who vote Republican, is easily disproved.

From Silver's work with exit polls, we can see what the 2008 election results would have looked like, if only rich people, middle income people, or poor people had been able to vote:

Source and details found here.





In the 2008 election, the likelihood of voting for McCain increased with income, and this tendency was most pronounced in red states. Again, from Silver:

 

[JMohegan]

Frankly, who gives a damn? I care about the president's policies, not whether he had a part-time job paying groceries at the local Safeway. I didn't give a damn either that Bush was alleged to have used cocaine or whatever. Even if he used cocaine while in office, that wouldn't be what made him a bad president (or good, depending on your view of him).

But did Obama really smoke pot? That's awesome. Maybe he'll be a little more sympathetic to the push for legalization. One can dream.

Barack Obama was raised by a single mother, and his grandparents. He lived in modest conditions for his entire childhood, including several years in Indonesia with a stepfather and half-sister. He returned to Hawaii and attended private high school on scholarship, while living with his grandparents in a two bedroom apartment.

In the United States, "vice president" at a bank is a middle management position, and at each bank there are many. That title does not mean: "2nd in charge." Obama's grandmother supported Obama's family, as a VP at a small bank in Hawaii.

Obama did drugs and drank in high school. He has been very open about that fact, and described it as his "greatest moral failure."

All of the above are well documented facts.

 

[Sayyid]

Barack Obama was raised by a single mother, and his grandparents. He lived in modest conditions for his entire childhood, including several years in Indonesia with a stepfather and half-sister. He returned to Hawaii and attended private high school on scholarship, while living with his grandparents in a two bedroom apartment.

In the United States, "vice president" at a bank is a middle management position, and at each bank there are many. That title does not mean: "2nd in charge." Obama's grandmother supported Obama's family, as a VP at a small bank in Hawaii.

Obama did drugs and drank in high school. He has been very open about that fact, and described it as his "greatest moral failure."

All of the above are well documented facts.

Yeah, these are all facts. I've heard them before. They're mildly interesting, but surely have no bearing on whether he's a good president or not. I mean, if soft drugs are his greatest moral failure he sounds like a pretty straightlaced kind of guy.

Some things are matters of impression, and others are just empirical facts. Fortunately, the idiotic notion that Democrats are elitist fat cats, looking down their noses at the "real people" who vote Republican, is easily disproved.

That notion couldn't make sense to anyone with half a brain. Why would the poor vote for a reduction of the welfare state they use? Why would the rich vote for an extension of it? It's just straight-up populism: reduce everything to an us-against-them class war between the honest, hard-working folk and the East Coast, Ivy League liberal elite.

 

[BiBunny]

That notion couldn't make sense to anyone with half a brain. Why would the poor vote for a reduction of the welfare state they use?

Poor white people in the South, as a rule, vote Republican. Yes, it's mostly against their best interests. There are a number of reasons for it.

I would imagine that a large percentage of those poor voters in the South who voted Democrat were blacks, who overwhelmingly voted for Obama.

Also, I perused the source, but I could've missed it because I'm at my parents' house and running dial-up and got sick of waiting for everything on the page to load, but what constitutes "poor," "middle," and "rich" here?

 

[JMohegan]

I'm talking about places that people in Austin were like "you don't wanna go there." I'm also talking about my current state. Redneckery isn't a Southern thing.

Forget it. Going into gun shops and being treated to "panzer division re-enactment" posters. I'm just paranoid and ignorant.

Where do the birthers, and deathers, and people stockpiling weapons because omg tyranny's at hand, and people filling the ranks of the resurging militias, purchase their guns?

It's not just the south, but these particular flavors of paranoia and militancy do seem to be concentrated in rural areas.

In this case, that assumption would have been incorrect. Remember, only 20 percent of us are rural at present time.

Which means a lot of people who *were* are no longer.

My post on birthers, deathers, et al, was not talking about trends in Rust Belt politics. It was made in response to your post about the crazies, and I was talking about crazies too. Crazies who buy guns.

The people who started stockpiling weapons even before Obama was elected (just in case the Muslim guy won.) The people who are now running around screaming that the Kenyan wants to impose socialist tyranny on the United States and start killing grandmothers. The people urging their peers to prepare for armed insurrection and/or secession, or at the very least to stop paying taxes.

These people. Crazies exhibiting extreme militancy and paranoia.

Another Silver map shows Obama's vote share among non-blacks across the country:

For detail on voting, by county, click me and then click on a state.

I'm assuming that the right wing crazies are concentrated in rural areas, in part because those are the areas that voted deepest red.

I am not saying that every soul living in a rural area is a right wing extremist, and I'm not saying that every McCain voter is a total fucking nut. What percentage of Americans are these crazies? Hard to say.

 

[JMohegan]

Poor white people in the South, as a rule, vote Republican. Yes, it's mostly against their best interests. There are a number of reasons for it.

Guns and religion.

That's how WD explained it:

"I'll tell you why democrats have a hard time in the south but you probably already know. And don't come barking up my tree. I'm not a social conservative. I'm just explaining here. If you want to call them ignorant, than go ahead. Won't hurt my feelings. But many believe that abortion is murder. No different than taking a truck load of breathing babies and throwing them off a cliff. And outside of urban areas they are against homosexual marriage overwhelmingly. Not 60/40 against, but 90/10 or 80/20. So all republicans have to do is paint democrats as being for Adam and Steve and abortion. And if the democrat has any voting record that hints of support for either, it's over. The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," is really going to have a high political price. Is it fair? Probably not, but little of politics is based on fairness.

Now democrats have been successful by running what I call Jesus and gun democrats. I didn't look, but the few that voted against the Obama stimulus are probably worried about keeping their jobs in 2010."

 

[JMohegan]

Yeah, these are all facts. I've heard them before. They're mildly interesting, but surely have no bearing on whether he's a good president or not. I mean, if soft drugs are his greatest moral failure he sounds like a pretty straightlaced kind of guy.

There's a "who would you want to have a beer with" standard that seems to appeal to many Americans - for reasons that I find difficult to fathom and *extremely* frustrating.

Both sides try to portray the other as elitist and out of touch, in an effort to take advantage of this tendency. During the 2008 campaign, the McCain people tried to portray Obama alternately as an effete intellectual and a "celebrity." The Obama people tried to portray McCain as out of touch because he had 7 homes and multiple absurdly expensive cars.

You are right, that all of this has zip to do with policy or presidential efficacy. The president who did the most to build a safety net for the American people was Franklin Roosevelt, born into a family of old money and wealthy until the day he died.

 

[Etoile]

I'm drunk. Ignore me.

VIRGINIA WENT BLUE IN 2008 BABY OH YEAH

Yes, I can still manually code UBB while drunk.

 

[BiBunny]

Guns and religion.

That's how WD explained it:

"I'll tell you why democrats have a hard time in the south but you probably already know. And don't come barking up my tree. I'm not a social conservative. I'm just explaining here. If you want to call them ignorant, than go ahead. Won't hurt my feelings. But many believe that abortion is murder. No different than taking a truck load of breathing babies and throwing them off a cliff. And outside of urban areas they are against homosexual marriage overwhelmingly. Not 60/40 against, but 90/10 or 80/20. So all republicans have to do is paint democrats as being for Adam and Steve and abortion. And if the democrat has any voting record that hints of support for either, it's over. The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," is really going to have a high political price. Is it fair? Probably not, but little of politics is based on fairness.

Now democrats have been successful by running what I call Jesus and gun democrats. I didn't look, but the few that voted against the Obama stimulus are probably worried about keeping their jobs in 2010."

I don't necessarily agree with the way most of the people I know vote, but I do understand it because I see how the politicians and the Southern Baptist church manipulate people who don't really have anything. I believe the leaders of the SB church will have a lot to answer for when they face the God they've been ascribing their own motives to for decades. Too bad for them.

It's not a matter of clinging to guns and religion because these people are frustrated. It's something that goes deeper than frustration and strikes a chord in the heart of pretty much of everyone who's not a sociopath.

It's fear. It's the knowledge that they don't have much now, and they don't want what little they have taken away by a bunch of capricious rich folks who have been steadily encroaching on the freedoms they do have for years.

I find it interesting that liberal-leaning people almost always bring up the inner-city areas as an example of class-war-battleground. These people will sympathize with the urban, largely minority population, yet turn around and bad-mouth the poor rural whites.

Open your eyes, folks. The same damn thing is happening to poor rural whites. They're getting screwed, too. The only difference is, they don't vote the same way you do.

And you know what? These people aren't dumb. They see that they're getting the raw end of the deal in many ways. They say, "Hey, I'm getting fucked, too, out here in BFE, Alabama, just like the poor people in Chicago. Where's the crowd of people trying intercede on my behalf?"

If you see that over and over long enough, you do become convinced that no one gives a rat's ass about you and your problems, then, yeah, you'll do stupid things, like vote against your own best interests. Add that in with the liberal people who SHOULD care about these folks characterizing them as backwards and stupid, and they shoot themselves in the foot.

The Democratic party fucks up majorly by catering to the urbanites at the expense of the poor rural people, who SHOULD, by rights, be some of its biggest supporters. Stop talking shit about these people and remember that they're human, too. They deserve the milk of human kindness just as much as inner-city people.

Treat them like they're real people, with real issues and human dignity, not a bunch of gun-toting "crazies." They aren't stupid. Stop talking about them and TO them as if they are.

What's the difference between a poor black kid in Chicago and a poor white kid in Georgia? One will end up in jail for selling crack on the streets and the other will end up in jail for making meth in his bathroom without someone to help them out.

Sometimes I think I should write a book on this very topic....

 

[Sayyid]

There's a "who would you want to have a beer with" standard that seems to appeal to many Americans - for reasons that I find difficult to fathom and *extremely* frustrating.

Both sides try to portray the other as elitist and out of touch, in an effort to take advantage of this tendency. During the 2008 campaign, the McCain people tried to portray Obama alternately as an effete intellectual and a "celebrity." The Obama people tried to portray McCain as out of touch because he had 7 homes and multiple absurdly expensive cars.

You are right, that all of this has zip to do with policy or presidential efficacy. The president who did the most to build a safety net for the American people was Franklin Roosevelt, born into a family of old money and wealthy until the day he died.

I don't want a president I can have a beer with. I want a president who's smarter, more effective and more driven than me. He (or she) has to understand the issues facing his/her constituents, but not be driven by appeals to emotion. A good president deals with problems coolly and rationally, based on what's good for the people, not what will please the voters with freebies and special favours.

Your point about Roosevelt is very telling. He could have allied himself with big business and spent his term in office comfortably, secure with their support; but he chose to pursue his own ideals because that's what mattered more to him.

 

[Netzach]

My post on birthers, deathers, et al, was not talking about trends in Rust Belt politics. It was made in response to your post about the crazies, and I was talking about crazies too. Crazies who buy guns.

The people who started stockpiling weapons even before Obama was elected (just in case the Muslim guy won.) The people who are now running around screaming that the Kenyan wants to impose socialist tyranny on the United States and start killing grandmothers. The people urging their peers to prepare for armed insurrection and/or secession, or at the very least to stop paying taxes.

These people. Crazies exhibiting extreme militancy and paranoia.

Another Silver map shows Obama's vote share among non-blacks across the country:

For detail on voting, by county, click me and then click on a state.

I'm assuming that the right wing crazies are concentrated in rural areas, in part because those are the areas that voted deepest red.

I am not saying that every soul living in a rural area is a right wing extremist, and I'm not saying that every McCain voter is a total fucking nut. What percentage of Americans are these crazies? Hard to say.

I'm not saying they're not crazy. I'm just saying they're crazy in So. Mpls, which isn't rural.

 

[JMohegan]

I don't necessarily agree with the way most of the people I know vote, but I do understand it because I see how the politicians and the Southern Baptist church manipulate people who don't really have anything. I believe the leaders of the SB church will have a lot to answer for when they face the God they've been ascribing their own motives to for decades. Too bad for them.

It's not a matter of clinging to guns and religion because these people are frustrated. It's something that goes deeper than frustration and strikes a chord in the heart of pretty much of everyone who's not a sociopath.

It's fear. It's the knowledge that they don't have much now, and they don't want what little they have taken away by a bunch of capricious rich folks who have been steadily encroaching on the freedoms they do have for years.

I find it interesting that liberal-leaning people almost always bring up the inner-city areas as an example of class-war-battleground. These people will sympathize with the urban, largely minority population, yet turn around and bad-mouth the poor rural whites.

Open your eyes, folks. The same damn thing is happening to poor rural whites. They're getting screwed, too. The only difference is, they don't vote the same way you do.

And you know what? These people aren't dumb. They see that they're getting the raw end of the deal in many ways. They say, "Hey, I'm getting fucked, too, out here in BFE, Alabama, just like the poor people in Chicago. Where's the crowd of people trying intercede on my behalf?"

If you see that over and over long enough, you do become convinced that no one gives a rat's ass about you and your problems, then, yeah, you'll do stupid things, like vote against your own best interests. Add that in with the liberal people who SHOULD care about these folks characterizing them as backwards and stupid, and they shoot themselves in the foot.

The Democratic party fucks up majorly by catering to the urbanites at the expense of the poor rural people, who SHOULD, by rights, be some of its biggest supporters. Stop talking shit about these people and remember that they're human, too. They deserve the milk of human kindness just as much as inner-city people.

Treat them like they're real people, with real issues and human dignity, not a bunch of gun-toting "crazies." They aren't stupid. Stop talking about them and TO them as if they are.

What's the difference between a poor black kid in Chicago and a poor white kid in Georgia? One will end up in jail for selling crack on the streets and the other will end up in jail for making meth in his bathroom without someone to help them out.

Sometimes I think I should write a book on this very topic....

What you are saying about the Bible Belt poor seems to me to be exactly what Obama said about the Rust Belt poor. Your post, BiBunny, reads to me like a longer version of his full quote. Here it is again:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."


He talks about how they're getting screwed. He sympathizes with the fact that their problems seem to get ignored, time and time again - by both Democratic and Republican administrations.

The "fear" you describe sounds an awful lot like "bitter" to me. Clinging to guns = worry about people encroaching on their freedoms, as you mentioned. Clinging to religion = looking to those Baptist leaders for guidance.

Nowhere does he call them stupid.

 

[Netzach]

It's not a matter of clinging to guns and religion because these people are frustrated. It's something that goes deeper than frustration and strikes a chord in the heart of pretty much of everyone who's not a sociopath.

It's fear. It's the knowledge that they don't have much now, and they don't want what little they have taken away by a bunch of capricious rich folks who have been steadily encroaching on the freedoms they do have for years.

I find it interesting that liberal-leaning people almost always bring up the inner-city areas as an example of class-war-battleground. These people will sympathize with the urban, largely minority population, yet turn around and bad-mouth the poor rural whites.

Open your eyes, folks. The same damn thing is happening to poor rural whites. They're getting screwed, too. The only difference is, they don't vote the same way you do.

It's very hard to be empathic, when people are voting and actively agitating not just against their own interests, but against the interests of the people around me, who are vulnerable.

The idea that a bunch of impoverished single mothers in the Bronx are fucking them is ludicrous and xenophobic - the fact that they BOUGHT the welfare queen booga booga Peggy Noonan bullshit and made life a literal hell for generations of people with policy that resulted - what exactly am I supposed to do with that information? That policy didn't set itself. It needed voters, really active pissed off scared voters.

It's not that it's a polite disagreement on policy that I can't handle because it puckers my liberal ass, it's a very substantial disagreement on policy that means people I know and see and move among get forced back down to the bottom with no way out.

I've done a modicum of organizing, believe it or not, on environment in rural areas here, with a lot of support and embrace. Most people identify with others being shafted here out in the sticks. They don't think Monsanto has done them any good, or Hormel.

We also have a history of *very* educated rural population here. The schools in the ex-urbs are still some of the best in the state by far. There's a lot of savvy and historical knowledge, whereas in a lot of places there's a lot of intelligence which isn't necessarily reinforced by the same kind of education. It leaves people very hip to their own interests. If you can deal with where you're from on a factual basis, you're armed in the more useful sense. If you can't reconcile the Hubble Telescope pictures with your Biblical notion of acceptability, you're not doing yourself favors in the mainstream marketplace.

It's not the farmers it's their stupid ungrateful suburban *children* who resent having to live among diverse population that scare me. They reap the benefits of dad's backbreaking work and think it means they're a better class of person than poor people.

 

[JMohegan]

Treat them like they're real people, with real issues and human dignity, not a bunch of gun-toting "crazies."

There are two different discussions here, as so often happens on these threads.

In talking about "crazies," I was not talking about the average Alabama voter.

I was talking about people currently joining militias, planning for armed insurrection, and/or plotting secession in response to Obama's presidency. Potentially violent, radical right wing nuts.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm not saying they're not crazy. I'm just saying they're crazy in So. Mpls, which isn't rural.

Jesus. Is that Bachmann's district?

The SPLC is very clear that this shit is happening all over the country:

"Almost 10 years after it seemed to disappear from American life, there are unmistakable signs of a revival of what in the 1990s was commonly called the militia movement. From Idaho to New Jersey and Michigan to Florida, men in khaki and camouflage are back in the woods, gathering to practice the paramilitary skills they believe will be needed to fend off the socialistic troops of the 'New World Order.'

One big difference from the militia movement of the 1990s is that the face of the federal government — the enemy that almost all parts of the extreme right see as the primary threat to freedom — is now black. And the fact that the president is an African American has injected a strong racial element into even those parts of the radical right, like the militias, that in the past were not primarily motivated by race hate. Contributing to the racial animus have been fears on the far right about the consequences of Latino immigration."

 

[Netzach]

Jesus. Is that Bachmann's district?

The SPLC is very clear that this shit is happening all over the country:

"Almost 10 years after it seemed to disappear from American life, there are unmistakable signs of a revival of what in the 1990s was commonly called the militia movement. From Idaho to New Jersey and Michigan to Florida, men in khaki and camouflage are back in the woods, gathering to practice the paramilitary skills they believe will be needed to fend off the socialistic troops of the 'New World Order.'

One big difference from the militia movement of the 1990s is that the face of the federal government — the enemy that almost all parts of the extreme right see as the primary threat to freedom — is now black. And the fact that the president is an African American has injected a strong racial element into even those parts of the radical right, like the militias, that in the past were not primarily motivated by race hate. Contributing to the racial animus have been fears on the far right about the consequences of Latino immigration."

No it's not. Hers is the 6th which is mostly near St. Cloud.

My point is that as you move into population dense areas they may show up royal blue on a map and they're still not monolithic in opinion. There's too many people there for that, and a sizeable swath of them will be insane in all directions.

South Mpls is the fifth. It's the heart of Keith Ellison voter land. But it also houses the same business I alluded to, and birthers, and the furthest right tin foil hats you ever did see, because those aren't some weird alien thing only in trailer parks. Everyone is very closely linked together. Incidentally, there's some scary freaking tin foil hats on the left. The 9/11 world bank ooga booga zionist conspiracy masons aieeeee nutters. They just aren't as compelling on TV at the moment, I suppose and never have been.

 

[ZRT]

Because no liberals are commoners.

Or poor.

And only Middle America contains "the little guy."

Certainly not the Bronx.

I have a very clear concept of "the little guy" and if Middle America wants to fuck him/her then fuck them is right.

If you're so clear on the little guy, then you don't need to trash his environs as 'Butt Pimple Creek'.

Urbans and rurals don't get along, that's a story that goes back to the first agrarian settlements. But it's always struck me as ironic that the liberals sneer down their noses at rural folks, then get all pissy when the rural folks don't geek for their platform.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama's statement was stupid and erroneous because it was high-handed and condescending. "Those little backwater people, they don't know any better. They're scared and frustrated, so they thump their bibles, hug their guns, and hate on darkies."

He doesn't understand a portion of his constituency, and obviously has no clue how to communicate with them.

Funny thing- I remember the fresh-faced Obama hype-eaters trying to talk pro-gunners into going for Obama. That's not an unprecedented notion because the gun vote is notorious for jumping parties in favor of their platform, probably more so than any of the other beholden interest groups. Of course, Obama's got a pretty anti-gun history, so it wasn't likely. But the best part was all the 'Of course he's not going to take your guns away, you silly paranoid little people!' overtone to it.

Personally I agree, but not for lack of desire. It's the fact that post '94, gun control has been little more than an intellectual debate. The progress on the issue has been made by the gun rights side of the issue, in instant check, Exile, CCW and so on. And of course, Obama comes in and shortly thereafter we get Holder talking about how much he'd love to bring the AWB back, despite it being a useless piece of legislation that accomplished nothing, and targets a problem that doesn't exist.

The issue is a nice way to identify the intellectually dishonest. Sure, there are ways to tweak things and there are some legitimate issues. But politicians who support nonsense like the AWB are either liars or ignorant idiots, and can be treated accordingly.

 

[Netzach]

If you're so clear on the little guy, then you don't need to trash his environs as 'Butt Pimple Creek'.

Dude, I trash my OWN environs as butt pimple creek with crack and ancient Yids and better pizza. Wow. I'm so superior. Frankly, the part of NYC that I came from sucked ass in every possible sense, from being dangerous enough to necessitate avoidance behavior and safe enough to be boring all at the same time. I think the suburb I live in NOW is more exciting if it wasn't for public transportation.

So when people visit where I'm from and say "this place SUCKS" I basically nod yep. No one tends to do that. It pretty much sucks in myriad ways I won't argue with. But people don't tell me it sucks, no. They decide that I think they suck because I'm from there.

If that's what they think, then yes, I think they suck. It's a feedback loop of sorts.

All I'd like is for it to suck less for people who still live there. And a lot of these people who have decided that I think they suck, are happy to vote *purely* because they want to stick it to me and everyone remotely like me. Because I have decided they suck because I am from there. Except I didn't. I would like to tell them that where I am from sucks instead. Bad.

But it's always struck me as ironic that the liberals sneer down their noses at rural folks, then get all pissy when the rural folks don't geek for their platform.

I've found it more ironic that again, you don't seem to think that someone can hold liberal/left opinion or any opinion on guns other than everyone should be able to run on down to walmart and get one unless they're some kind of starbucks jackwad with their city mouse head up their ass.

My hesitancy to run up in small town PA and sing kumbaya with the locals may actually have a basis in family history and prior experience, rather than pure NYC provincialism.

 

[ZRT]

Dude, I trash my OWN environs as butt pimple creek with crack and ancient Yids and better pizza. Wow. I'm so superior. Frankly, the part of NYC that I came from sucked ass in every possible sense, from being dangerous enough to necessitate avoidance behavior and safe enough to be boring all at the same time. I think the suburb I live in NOW is more exciting if it wasn't for public transportation.

So when people visit where I'm from and say "this place SUCKS" I basically nod yep. No one tends to do that. It pretty much sucks in myriad ways I won't argue with. But people don't tell me it sucks, no. They decide that I think they suck because I'm from there.

If that's what they think, then yes, I think they suck. It's a feedback loop of sorts.

Alright, you basically meant it one way, I took it another.

I apologize for riding your ass on it. I am an overzealous asshole occasionally, and this turned out to be one of those times.

All I'd like is for it to suck less for people who still live there. And a lot of these people who have decided that I think they suck, are happy to vote *purely* because they want to stick it to me and everyone remotely like me. Because I have decided they suck because I am from there. Except I didn't. I would like to tell them that where I am from sucks instead. Bad.

So tell 'em. You of all people know full well how City folk tend to shit on everything that doesn't come from 'The Cradle of Civilization'.

I've found it more ironic that again, you don't seem to think that someone can hold liberal/left opinion or any opinion on guns other than everyone should be able to run on down to walmart and get one unless they're some kind of starbucks jackwad with their city mouse head up their ass.

Actually, even the starbucks jackwads with their city mice up their asses should be able to get ahold of guns. Especially the skinny little vegetarians with the pipecleaner arms

My issue is that you're talking about restrictions of fundamental rights. Try a little substitution:

When you're talking about speech restrictions, should these two principles be kept in mind?

1)Any restrictions should be made from sound, rational consideration that avoids hysterical fearmongering.
2)Any restrictions should be carefully considered for potential consequences and made in as minimalistic a fashion as possible, so as to prevent very specific abuses (don't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, basically), and not in sloppy, power-serving form.

That's how I feel about restrictions on guns. I disagree with the specifics of your proposal, but it at least has a rational grounding and could have some merit. The most of what the antigun lobby proposes, on the other hand, fails both tests above, and that's why I have a pretty reflexive suspicion of anything they propose. I don't know of a single reasonable proposal that the Brady Coalition (or whatever they are this week) has ever come out with, and they're the standard bearers for the movement. The closest they came was the Brady Law, and that was because a background check is useful, but the waiting period they insisted on attaching absolutely wasn't.

My hesitancy to run up in small town PA and sing kumbaya with the locals may actually have a basis in family history and prior experience, rather than pure NYC provincialism.

That I can fully understand.

 

[ZRT]

Dude, I trash my OWN environs as butt pimple creek with crack and ancient Yids and better pizza. Wow. I'm so superior. Frankly, the part of NYC that I came from sucked ass in every possible sense, from being dangerous enough to necessitate avoidance behavior and safe enough to be boring all at the same time. I think the suburb I live in NOW is more exciting if it wasn't for public transportation.

So when people visit where I'm from and say "this place SUCKS" I basically nod yep. No one tends to do that. It pretty much sucks in myriad ways I won't argue with. But people don't tell me it sucks, no. They decide that I think they suck because I'm from there.

If that's what they think, then yes, I think they suck. It's a feedback loop of sorts.

Alright, you basically meant it one way, I took it another.

I apologize for riding your ass on it. I am an overzealous asshole occasionally, and this turned out to be one of those times.

All I'd like is for it to suck less for people who still live there. And a lot of these people who have decided that I think they suck, are happy to vote *purely* because they want to stick it to me and everyone remotely like me. Because I have decided they suck because I am from there. Except I didn't. I would like to tell them that where I am from sucks instead. Bad.

So tell 'em. You of all people know full well how City folk tend to shit on everything that doesn't come from 'The Cradle of Civilization'.

I've found it more ironic that again, you don't seem to think that someone can hold liberal/left opinion or any opinion on guns other than everyone should be able to run on down to walmart and get one unless they're some kind of starbucks jackwad with their city mouse head up their ass.

Actually, even the starbucks jackwads with their city mice up their asses should be able to get ahold of guns. Especially the skinny little vegetarians with the pipecleaner arms

My issue is that you're talking about restrictions of fundamental rights. Try a little substitution:

When you're talking about speech restrictions, should these two principles be kept in mind?

1)Any restrictions should be made from sound, rational consideration that avoids hysterical fearmongering.
2)Any restrictions should be carefully considered for potential consequences and made in as minimalistic a fashion as possible, so as to prevent very specific abuses (don't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, basically), and not in sloppy, power-serving form.

That's how I feel about restrictions on guns. I disagree with the specifics of your proposal, but it at least has a rational grounding and could have some merit. The most of what the antigun lobby proposes, on the other hand, fails both tests above, and that's why I have a pretty reflexive suspicion of anything they propose. I don't know of a single reasonable proposal that the Brady Coalition (or whatever they are this week) has ever come out with, and they're the standard bearers for the movement. The closest they came was the Brady Law, and that was because a background check is useful, but the waiting period they insisted on attaching absolutely wasn't.

My hesitancy to run up in small town PA and sing kumbaya with the locals may actually have a basis in family history and prior experience, rather than pure NYC provincialism.

That I can fully understand.

 

[ZRT]

Dude, I trash my OWN environs as butt pimple creek with crack and ancient Yids and better pizza. Wow. I'm so superior. Frankly, the part of NYC that I came from sucked ass in every possible sense, from being dangerous enough to necessitate avoidance behavior and safe enough to be boring all at the same time. I think the suburb I live in NOW is more exciting if it wasn't for public transportation.

So when people visit where I'm from and say "this place SUCKS" I basically nod yep. No one tends to do that. It pretty much sucks in myriad ways I won't argue with. But people don't tell me it sucks, no. They decide that I think they suck because I'm from there.

If that's what they think, then yes, I think they suck. It's a feedback loop of sorts.

All I'd like is for it to suck less for people who still live there. And a lot of these people who have decided that I think they suck, are happy to vote *purely* because they want to stick it to me and everyone remotely like me. Because I have decided they suck because I am from there. Except I didn't. I would like to tell them that where I am from sucks instead. Bad.

You meant it one way, I took it another. I apologize for riding your ass over the miscommunication.

But it does speak to something that I feel we need to hang onto- what's right for one region isn't necessarily right for another. That's one of the reasons that I'm a Federal minimalist, and prefer local administration whenever possible.

I've found it more ironic that again, you don't seem to think that someone can hold liberal/left opinion or any opinion on guns other than everyone should be able to run on down to walmart and get one unless they're some kind of starbucks jackwad with their city mouse head up their ass.

That's not it. What I was responding to was the 'Butt Pimple Creek' thing, which does come off as derogatory of the sticks.

I live around an area that's strangely tweener. About twenty miles south, there's the largest metro nexus in the area, that pulls in about a quarter-mil population into its orbit. Ask the outlying regions what 'the big city' is, they'll refer to that area. But it's not even a blip for a real major urban area, despite the fact that it has been a pretty major nexus for this end of the state. Head out of it, you're surrounded by a lot of little bumps in the road, population ranges running in the hundreds to the thousands.

So I can relate to the rural defensiveness, and having lived with and among the folks, I share it somewhat.

My hesitancy to run up in small town PA and sing kumbaya with the locals may actually have a basis in family history and prior experience, rather than pure NYC provincialism.

I get you completely here.

 

[Homburg]

Forget it. Going into gun shops and being treated to "panzer division re-enactment" posters. I'm just paranoid and ignorant.

There was a shop locally that was the best little place insofar as price and selection were concerned. I would go in, shop, talk with the owner, etc. One day, I was in with a friend that was buying and he was having a problem with his background check (same name as a wanted felon, nothing serious). While waiting, I happened to look around, and noticed the very blatant Nazi uniform, medal, weapons, etc display that I'd never paid a lick of attention to before.

It was disturbing. The owner was the nicest guy, and I'd never seen him take a lick of attitude with anyone of any skin tone, yet there was this looming reminder of horrific racism and genocide right here in the shop.

I never really consciously thought about it, but, in retrospect, I never bought from him again and shopped other places after that. I see him on occasion at shows. His shop failed many years ago, but he still gets a table sometimes to move vintage (Nazi) firearms to other collectors.

I really like the Luger P08, but I have no desire to own one. I don't want to think about the karma attached to it. And that guy is the one that made me realise that.

Sorry, I was too busy going over my house with white gloves and castigating the help.

I LOL'ed.

The fact is, when a gun resides in the house, there is a significant statistical jump in likelihood that that woman may die from being shot with it by her own partner.

I've never understood the relevance of this reasoning.

If you have a live tiger loose in your house, you are statistically more like to be eaten by a live tiger than if you did not have a live tiger in your house.

If you carpet your floors, your are more likely to get rug-burns than if you have hardwood floors.

I mean, I understand the avoidant aspect, but it is always presented like some big, impressive statistical factor, when in reality it is an absolute no-brainer. If you don't want to get eaten by a live tiger, don't keep one in your house. It lessens the already staggeringly low odds. Substitute "shot" and "gun" where you want, because the odds are low there as well (not as low, but you get what I mean).

--

In the United States, "vice president" at a bank is a middle management position, and at each bank there are many. That title does not mean: "2nd in charge." Obama's grandmother supported Obama's family, as a VP at a small bank in Hawaii.

My uncle was the VP of a small-town bank. I concur with your portrayal here. He wasn't hurting, sure, but made less money than the judge, or lawyers in the same town. He had a modest, but nice enough, house, and an okay car. The sort of cars he drove were along the lines of a Chevy Malibu. His daughter went to a state college.

VP of Bank of America is impressive and makes money. VP of Podunk First Bank and Trust is just another middle-class guy.

--

My hesitancy to run up in small town PA and sing kumbaya with the locals may actually have a basis in family history and prior experience, rather than pure NYC provincialism.

Yup. As I've said before, my own real-world actual experience in small-town PA tells me that it is a helluva lot more dangerous to be black, or jewish, or oriental there than it does here in the Bible Belt. I made it through with my own mixed heritage by combination of jokey personality and willingness to stand up to anyone that needed standing up to.

I will concur with others that have said that the jew thing is much less of an issue here than people might believe. In smalltown PA, they talk about "dirty kikes" and the like, but here not so much. There just aren't enough jews in this area to really make an impact. What racists are here spend their vitriol on blacks and occasionally on the "ay-rabs".

 

[Netzach]

There was a shop locally that was the best little place insofar as price and selection were concerned. I would go in, shop, talk with the owner, etc. One day, I was in with a friend that was buying and he was having a problem with his background check (same name as a wanted felon, nothing serious). While waiting, I happened to look around, and noticed the very blatant Nazi uniform, medal, weapons, etc display that I'd never paid a lick of attention to before.

It was disturbing. The owner was the nicest guy, and I'd never seen him take a lick of attitude with anyone of any skin tone, yet there was this looming reminder of horrific racism and genocide right here in the shop.

I never really consciously thought about it, but, in retrospect, I never bought from him again and shopped other places after that. I see him on occasion at shows. His shop failed many years ago, but he still gets a table sometimes to move vintage (Nazi) firearms to other collectors.

I really like the Luger P08, but I have no desire to own one. I don't want to think about the karma attached to it. And that guy is the one that made me realise that.



I LOL'ed.



I've never understood the relevance of this reasoning.

If you have a live tiger loose in your house, you are statistically more like to be eaten by a live tiger than if you did not have a live tiger in your house.

If you carpet your floors, your are more likely to get rug-burns than if you have hardwood floors.

I mean, I understand the avoidant aspect, but it is always presented like some big, impressive statistical factor, when in reality it is an absolute no-brainer. If you don't want to get eaten by a live tiger, don't keep one in your house. It lessens the already staggeringly low odds. Substitute "shot" and "gun" where you want, because the odds are low there as well (not as low, but you get what I mean).

--

But I'm not presenting it like that - holy shit women are more likely to die of gun violence in a home with a gun!

I'm asking how much collateral damage is acceptable before we start treating guns maybe an iota more like cars.

You can't agree that there's some rational kernel of concern in wondering whether the instant and spontaneous nature of killing self and others with a gun is *different* in some way, some marked way, that it's not just hysterical to ponder?

Mostly I see these collateral damages being totally trivialized by people as statistical outliers and "they'd just use a baseball bat anyway" logic applied where it no longer convinces me.

I beg to differ. The guy mugging you would just use a box cutter or a baseball bat or whatever anyway. I'm in agreement on that.

The school/public shooters, they'd get the gun to do it illegally as quickly as legally, IMO. This is a perfect example of fear being used, and people's deaths being used in a gross way to advance an agenda in either direction.

The at-home "snapped" person, who's more common than unabashedly pro second people want to admit, seems the most likely to be slowed down by tighter regulations when it's time to get the permit. The only example of such, IMO. Again, you'll find wide swaths of the world whose attiude is "it's totally safe here, no one gets shot, except for those 2, 5, 10 whatever women whose husbands blew them away."

No one thinks this is a problem?