Quote:
Originally Posted by citadel
For whatever it's worth, I don't think most Americans were stockpiling arms in the sense we're discussing. I know a few people who bought dozens of EBR's ("Evil Black Rifles," guns that have been demonized by the media but that are less powerful than the common hunting rifle) because they anticipated a ban coming, and with the lessons learned during the ban in effect from 1994-2004 they knew that they could sell them for a lot more than they paid for them if a ban passed, and because they knew that if there was a chance they wanted something now, they should get it while they still could. When the government and everyone else is talking about a ban, internet rumor and panic hit.
[...]
|
Oh, I'm sure it was exaggerated by the media, but I'm not concerned about the average American. This thread was always about that subset of the militia folk who really think that the government is out to get them, that socialism is coming, and the liberals are destroying freedom, etc.
Quote:
|
A few loose screws were talking about revolution, but almost everyone I knew and talked to in that timeframe was basically realizing that if they didn't have it in their hands imediately, there was no guarantee that they would be able to have it in the future.
|
And the subset to that subset I mentioned above is what worry me the most. Those who are "getting ready" for "when the shit hits the fan" and the shit is going to hit the fan, and they're going to be ready. It's this subset of the subset who've "had enough" and "aren't going to take it anymore" and must "fight and die for freedom or freedom itself will die...." Blah, blah, blah. I know this is a minority, but it sounds like an ignorant and readily violent minority. And, hey, this is Tilted Paranoia. Can I not entertain the idea of pockets of people around the country who are ready to band together and do something stupid?
And what would it take to set something bigger off? Play on others' fears and frustrations? Are there powder kegs to these nutjobs' fuses?
Quote:
|
While I agree that America has a problem with violent crime, a lot of what's reported is spin, the result of skewed statistics, especially when it comes to the # of firearms deaths. That's veering off topic, but I think it's worth mentioning.
|
You say America "has a problem"; I say it's an epidemic. Just looking at the stats, it's appalling. I don't watch American local news, which is where you'll find the biggest spin and sensationalized responses. There is nothing (or very little anyway) popping up on this Canadian's radar that would suggest spin. The Canadian homicide rate is 1.9 per 100,000 people (2004). The U.S. has something like 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 (2004), which is more than double the average for industrialized nations (2.5 per 100,000), and as you can see, this approaches nearly 3 times the Canadian rate. So if I move down to the U.S., I can expect to nearly triple the likelihood of being murdered, all depending on where I move, as I'm certain it's far worse in certain areas and at least marginally better in others.
Beyond these numbers, though, I admit that I don't know much about how violent the U.S. is. I haven't spent much time there. All I know is if I look at the numbers, there are a lot of murders. I'm not sure how skewed the gun statistics are, but these numbers mean something, don't they?
Quote:
|
I didn't vote for Obama, but I don't think for a second McCain-Palin would have been anything more than a few degrees better for the nation's overall well being. I can honestly say his skin color, race, religious beliefs or whatever else are irrelevant to me as a voter; the only thing I want to see is the government abiding by the rules laid out for it in the Constitution (yes, the whole thing, not cherry picked things I like), and nowadays, stopping the snowballing national debt before we collapse financially.
|
I think it's in Obama's interests to get the economy and the deficit back on track. I'm not an American voter, so it's a non-issue for me with regard to my political expectations, but I sincerely think that he played an important role in averting economic disaster. It doesn't take foreign economies/investors much to walk away from American interests. As much as the deficit looks alarming, the consequences of not having done enough were far more dire. But it's much easier to see what's there than what "could have happened." It's like a bitter medicine. You complain about how it tastes like shit going down and it might even give you the runs, but, hey, at least you aren't dead from a festering disease. Not yet anyway.
Quote:
|
But the American media, which is left wing/centrist to me— *Screeeeech*
|
Say what?
Seriously, it all depends on what outlet you're talking about. Sure, any media outlet or program that has terms like
democracy and
truth combined with
out and
now in their titles are going to have liberal slant. But when you're talking about mainstream national network media, you aren't going to find more than a left-like nuance. This is big media. Anything left of centre-right is considered "leftist" or "socialist" in America (which is silly, really). So despite what you hear coming out of MSNBC, CNN, or ABC News, they are hardly left of centre. Left of centre approaches the category of social democracy, which is a
strong slant towards workers' rights, fair trade (vs. globalization and free trade), environmentalism, social justice, universal health care, etc. Those are
fringe topics in American media. Heck, they are to a large part even in Canada. And the centre left looks at these issues as a matter of course, not some pipe dream.
Quote:
... did a great job of incorrectly reporting the run on guns and ammo. By the time they got around to reporting it, it was old news. They also mocked most gun owners for thinking that some kind of a ban was coming, because in their 6-8 month delay to report on the situation, the info about it was taken down off of the White House site. They reported some of the NICS numbers (the background check system used when you buy a gun from a store in the US), but they really didn't get the whole picture. They missed other important details, like how long term storage food supply sellers were also sold out, especially after stories hit about the food crisis in Detroit.
I think most of the people were afraid of civil unrest, of the loss of a stable society. People were preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. I traded hard to find ammo with Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, die hard Obama/McCain/Paul fans, and a few grumpy "I don't care about politics" type folks. [...]
|
But is the misreporting because of some liberal or lefty agenda? Or are they doing what news does? If it bleeds it leads. Sensationalization sells. Like I said, I don't really know what the media is like as much as I do here in Canada. But even here, again, most media barely ventures left of centre despite the fact that a large proportion of our federal government seats are filled with out-of-the-closet social democrats. We're talking about guys and gals who would be literally reviled by uncountable Americans.
Maybe a thread on the politicization of guns is in order. I know you gun guys like to keep your Tilted Weapons politics-free, but if a big complaint of yours is media perceptions of guns, then why not talk about it?
I'm not sure I've made a point here, but I guess, generally, it was a bit odd to see the market frenzy regarding guns and ammo when Obama was elected, and I think it had more to do with concern about certain selective bans. Most Americans aren't gun nuts, I get that, but the interest from my perspective is of the gun nuts.
Quote:
|
I still disagree with you on the part about inciting a response. There is nothing violent about burning a book. It displays ignorance and is a throwback to Guy Montag or that rally with Hitler I saw in an Indiana Jones movie, but there's nothing physically dangerous or threatening about it. No rational human is going to be spurred to violence because of a moron with a lighter, no matter which side of the equation they're on. If I burn a book it says pretty loudly that I'm an asshole, and probably full of some strong bias, prejudice or hate. But it shouldn't say that people who read whichever sacred text is being burned should turn their deep offense into a riot or attack of somekind.
|
This statement is made with the assumption that burning the Quran is no different than burning any other book. There is a difference. There is a Muslim belief that the physical manifestation of each Quran is sacred, and that defiling or destroying it is an affront to their faith and to Allah. To many Muslims, destroying a Quran would be as devastating as destroying important American landmarks would be to American patriots. There is value in the physical manifestation itself, not just the ideas. You can destroy the Statue of Liberty and say, "Well, at least the idea of liberty is still intact!" Yet, I'm sure you'd have some rather angry and violent Americans ready to exact revenge. At least one, let's say.
Look, I'm not an apologist of violence. I'm not saying a Quran burning is an excuse to riot or murder Americans. What I am saying is that those who burn Qurans are either ignorant or know damn well that this is the kind of response they'll get. Like I said above, if you want to criticize the worst aspects of Islam, there are many ways to do it and still keep my respect. Burning a Quran doesn't do that. It targets the religion in its entirety and it has attached to it very real social consequences. It is folly.
Quote:
Religious freedom isn't limited to reasoned criticism. Many athiests probably think that monothiests or even polythiests aren't capable of reason when it comes to religious disagreement, and vice versa. From an emotionally detached religious freedom point of view, I see no difference between the WBC anti-homosexual protests, pro-gay marriage rallies, Muslim extremists burning the US flag, or Christian extremists burning the Quran. They are people expressing their religious views (to some extent, I realize there are a few hairs worth splitting here depending on your own religious views) of one kind or another, that other people may find extremely offensive, who would be disturbed to their very core by the behavior. Still, a big part of religious freedom means allowing other people to do things in the name of their whacky religion that might piss you off.
All that changes when there is an immediate, direct threat of some kind, but I don't see that in book burning by itself.
|
I get that. But my point is that if you value religious freedom, you don't burn Qurans, Bibles, Torahs, Vedas, Sutras, etc.