Re: Sorry! I got to that last! I went down thru the thread and was working my way back to the top. =
> Yeah, that sotry was troubling. But nevertheless, I just don't see any
> motivation behind Blair's actions besides that he truly believes it's
> right.
> That doesn't mean he IS right, of course, but it really bugs me when
> people question his sincerity when he's risking everything on all this and
> taking considerable heat. You're a fan of Bono, right? I'm not, but I did
> see Bono on MTV the other day. He said he didn't buy into any of these
> conspiracy theories and all that bullshit, and he's met the leaders
> invovled and feels they are absolutely serious and sicnere in what they're
> doing. He went on to say he personally belueves they're sincerely wrong,
> but yeah...I wish some people would voice their disagreements without
> trying to demonize and buy into conspiracies so much. As the
> representative for Spain points out
> (http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters03-10-150155.asp?reg=EUROPE)
> the countries with suspect motivations here are France, Russia, and China.
> And it's most certainly NOT a blood-for-oil policy, at least on America's
> and Britain's part (see this editorial for more on that:
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030305-6019357.htm ).
i'm not trying to demonize blair, but i find that story hard to overlook. if you're right, you don't need to lie in a bid to prove you're right. yes, he may well be sincere, but i personally think there's more to it. i'm not one for conspiracy theories in general. it's not like i think he has a pact with satan or anything. i just think that there must be more to it than meets the eye. and yes, i know that france's government has ulterior motives for not supporting the war, but most french citizens are also against the war. it's not like jacque who runs the boulangerie or marie who makes fromage are against the war because france has something to gain. the government's motives may be screwed up, but the people are sincere. it's not like your average person will profit from any of this anyway. any wealth gained by the united states or france or any other country (even iraq) will not be evenly distributed. why is it so farfetched to think that the british and american governments have ulterior motives when they stand to gain far more from a war than france would gain from the lack of one?
> Did you ever check out www.spinsanity.com and their section on Michael
> Moore?
> It's fine to be against the gun nutters to such an extent that you'd
> weaken the second amendment, but I wouldn't rely on Michael Moore the
> Professional Liar for anything.
i don't rely on michael moore for everything. in fact, his movie doesn't offer any solutions for the gun problem. it merely opens your eyes to the existence of the problem and poses the question of why the problem even exists.
> But um, just remember that once rights are taken away they're hard to get
> back.
> You may not see an "actual need" for gun rights in 2003, but you
> don't know what's gonna happen in 50 years. What if your grandchildren
> find themselves with Adolf Hitler the 2nd as president? And anyway, I have
> a coule guns and I'm glad I do. It's better to have a gun when you need
> one than not to! I was never a Boy Scout, but "be prepared"
> seems like a good slogan to me.
well first of all, i don't plan on having children or grandchildren, so my legacy ends for me. why worry about something that could happen in 50 years but probably won't? the fact is, if we try to make the world a better place to live in today, it will probably be a better place tomorrow, as long as people keep on the ball.
> And remember: 3,000 people were murdered in less than one hour with just
> box cutters, not a single gun.
the difference is that thousands of people are murdered every year with guns, both purposely and accidentally. september 11th was a freak occurence.
> I'm open to reasonable restrictions on guns and gun purchases. Obviously I
> don't want my neighbor to have a nuclear arsenal in his basement. But I
> see the agenda as being the outlawing of guns. Which won't take guns off
> the streets, of course. It'll just water-down the rights of law-abiding
> citizens.
> It's all part of the Rosie O'Donnel emotional soccer mom agenda. I don't
> doubt that America is a strangely violent country given its wealth and
> advanced status, and that this should be examined, but a gun is just a
> tool.
a handgun is not a tool. it has no practical purpose (apart from law enforcement, but if criminals didn't have handguns, cops wouldn't need them as much). people don't use handguns for hunting. handguns are for killing people. i don't think all guns should be banned, but i think handguns should be outlawed completely, expect for law enforcement officials. no, it wouldn't keep guns off the street, but there would be significantly fewer if production were limited
> Doesn't Michael Moore's film point out that Canada has lots of guns too?
> I haven't seen the film, but that's my understanding.
you're correct, but he also shows that whereas america has thousands of gun deaths a year, canada's are in the double digits. they have more guns per capita, but an amazingly small number of deaths. it's really intriguing. why are americans so damn irresponsible with their guns (i'm referring both to accidental gun deaths and to the sale of guns to criminals or mentally unstable individuals)? canadians have guns and don't go killing each other. the way i see it, guns should be a privilege and not a right. the government, seeing that many americans obviously aren't competent enough to safely operate or lock up their guns, should limit their ability to have them. if guns are to remain legal, then the NRA really should return itself to a gun safety organization. in fact, your favorite person on earth, michael moore, planned to run for president of the NRA and return it to a safety organization. he realized that he'd never get elected apparently, and instead decided to focus on bowling for columbine. it was a good choice, i think, because it has opened many eyes. the most touching scene in a movie last year was when michael moore tried to show charleton heston a picture of a little girl who was murdered with a gun by a classmate (we're talking first grade here) which he found lying around in his uncle's house. heston refused to look at it. i think that's rather revealing of many gun fanatics' mindsets.
> A gun is a means to protect yourself, your home, your family. You wanna
> leave it all up to the government; I wanna be able to rely on myself if
> need be.
guns are also used to take people's rights away from them. you may want to fight fire with fire, but i'm not one for vigilanteism. i can't say what i would do if someone came into my house and tried to harm myself or my family. i'd defend myself sure, but what are the odds? yes, it's good to be prepared, but it seems strange to me to fight guns with guns.
> Have you seen a movie called The Trigger Effect? In that movie the
> electricity goes out for an extended period of time, and the law and order
> of civilization falls apart. Now that's a freak occurance, granted, but if
> something like that happened, I bet even Mindy would consider trying to
> get her hands on a gun rather than have looters bust into your home. And
> there are plenty of less freakish possibilities in which a gun could be a
> lifesaver. But how freakish is the Trigger Effect scenerio? I mean, we
> were just in Terror Alert Orange mode recently. What if you city were hit
> by chemicals, and you were so busy laughing at Tom Ridge that you forgot
> to get some duck tape, food, water, and plastic sheeting? I didn't get any
> of that shit either, but lets say I did. And I lived in your neighborhood.
> And a week before I blabbed about how prepared I saw. Well, I'd want a gun
> to keep some motherf***er from trying to steal my supplies!
> OK, I guess I'm being ridiculous. I'm not really that into guns. I like to
> skeet shoot, that's all. But I would shoot someone who busted into my home
> to harm me, and I do think having the means to do so is my right which my
> government has no authority to take away. Reasonable restrictions enacted
> with a good faith respect for my individual rights, fine. Excessive
> restrictions enacted with a disrespect for my individual rights, and I'll
> start considering joining Charlton Heston in saying, "Out of my cold,
> dead hands!!!!!!!!!!"
that's fine for you, but as you said yourself, the contigencies you mention will most likely never happen and you can't say for sure what you'd do in the moment. perhaps overcome with sympathy for your unprepared neighbors, you'd want to share your supplies. who can say? it's good to be prepared, but i'd prefer to be reasonable and not prepare for the total breakdown of society. *knock on wood* i mean, it is within the realm of possibility, but look at new york. as much as i hate to say anything good about new yorkers, they behaved very well after the events of 9-11. society didn't collapse along with the twin towers. there was some looting i heard and some people took advantage of ATM machines that went haywire, but, by and large, people handled themselves extraordinarily well under the circumstances. that day, the world seemed like it was going to end. my grandma called my house in tears, waking me up to tell me that america was under seige and that this was the first sign of the apocalypse. if my grandma, who lives in a suburb of los angeles was that freaked out, i can only imagine how new yorkers felt. and still, they behaved themselves. it's really quite impressive and quite frankly more than i expected (keeping in mind that i have always had a bias against new york -- sort of my own personal east coast vs. west coast rivalry). my point is that you never know how you're going to respond to the worst possible scenario. and in my way of thinking, while guns can be useful in a small number of situations, they cause more harm than good.
