- Reaction score
- 2,799
- Points
- 940
:WeatherdoG said:
I was questioning the logic, not validity.
Therefore, I'll try small words: Let Loachman answer...please.
The Great Gun Control Debate
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
- Status
I was questioning the logic, not validity.
Therefore, I'll try small words: Let Loachman answer...please.
- Reaction score
- 1,471
- Points
- 1,260
Jarnhamar said:
Something from Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education ( NASPA ) caught my eye.
That universities face a budgetary dilemma: paying for both their core educational mission and the new expense of these costly outsiders -- “it’s an expensive proposition, and there’s no easy answer.”
QUOTE
October 13, 2017
Speakers Stress University Pocketbooks
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/13/colleges-search-answer-high-spending-controversial-speakers
Administrators don’t yet know how to handle the high costs of controversial figures appearing on their campuses.
Security was escalated for the so-called free speech week, with the university spending at least $800,000, but likely far more, the bulk being additional police presence. Invoices are still rolling in, a Berkeley spokesman said.
By every account, Yiannopoulos’s strike against what he considers the academic establishment fizzled, but it cost the institution just shy of $1 million -- more than what it spent on similar safety measures in three fiscal years combined. Less than two weeks before that, Berkeley had spent about $600,000 to ensure right-wing writer and commentator Ben Shapiro could address campus.
Next week, white supremacist Richard Spencer will speak at the University of Florida. Officials there estimate a drain of at least half a million dollars on the institution’s coffers, also on security.
END QUOTE
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Jarnhamar: Not really a rant. You raise many good points. Outstanding amongst them is the sense that if you are a conservative person (I'm not sure that is automatically the same as "right wing"), then you are being backed into a corner and denied a free and level playing field. The "left wing" seems to hold the field and the moral high ground.
If, for example, a person asks about the responsibilities of immigrants to adapt to Canadian society in a reasonable way (ie: don't kill your daughter because she goes to the mall wearing shorts), then you may be characterized as as a "racist, or "anti-immigrant".
If a person wants to lawfully own firearms for hunting, or sport shooting, or legitimate collecting, and defends the right to do so with minimal reasonable legal restrictions, one may be called down as a "redneck" or "gun freak".
If a person wants to publicly express a divergent opinion (ie: pro-Israel, pro-border control, etc) that person may find themselves unable to speak publicly because of extreme disruption or even risk of violence.
All of this is wrong, and stupid. All it does is repel and marginalize people who are, I think really quite moderate conservatives. They become embittered, and the gap widens.
The people largely responsible for inspiring this behaviour are, in my opinion, those who you could properly call the "left wing". They are as far to that end of the spectrum as La Meute and others are to the right end of it. Some of them are types like Black Bloc, anarchists, etc. And of course, if you are way out on the left, everything and everybody is to the right of you.
And vice versa.
But here is where we get into a problem: guilt by association, or bumper-stickering. In between the two wings are, I think, all the rest of us, who shade more or less around a centre point. But we get associated with the more extreme ends. Some examples:
"I believe in the private ownership of firearms" Bumper sticker: Gun Freak! Sandy Hook Denier! Neo-nazi!!
"I believe gay people should be able to marry" Bumper sticker: Destroyer of Traditional Marriage! You hate Christianity! You support pedophiles!
And so on. You get what I mean. Bumper stickering is easy, because we can put people into a little box and stop thinking about what they're saying. Because, after all, we know all "liberals" think the same way, right? And all "conservatives" seldom differ either, right?
So, what can moderate conservatives do? Circle the wagons and curse "Main Stream Society"? More marginalization and embitterment. I think there are three possible courses of action, all of them requiring forbearance and persistence, and none guaranteed to succeed:
-First, publicly disassociate from the "far right". Don't wink at them, or tolerate them, or say "well maybe they have a point, y'know". Make it very clear that racism, bigotry, medieval misogyny and various forms of paranoia are not part of the make up of moderate conservatism. In my opinion this is a big failure on the part of moderate conservatism. We like to demand that moderate Muslims publicly disavow Islamic extremists: the same principle applies, in my opinion;
-Second,continue to point out clearly and rationally, in as many venues as possible (and there are many venues) that honest questioning and free public expression are a basic element of our society. But this means two things that may be distasteful: accepting the vital role of a free media in a democracy, and accepting the free expression of people we don't agree with.
In my opinion there is almost a knee-jerk reaction by many people who might call themselves "conservatives", to the media as being agents of Satan. The media is not there to be anybody's friend: they are there to "print the news and raise hell". In our Canadian political system, with no recall legislation and the power of majority governments, the media is really the only protection against government misbehaviour in the four or five years between elections. No government I have ever seen is going to willingly ferret out and report its own stupidity and misbehaviuor. As Thomas Jefferson warned:
The media is what it is, and it does what it does. It's like the weather: it's there. Learning to use it is more productive than banging your head against, or muttering darkly about shutting it down.
In terms of free expression, are conservatives willing to tolerate it for opposing viewpoints? Some people might argue that this is a pointless question, because public expression is already dominated and controlled by "Them". But I still think it is a good "look in the mirror" question; and
-Finally, resist the temptation to vote for right-wing populist demagogues who have little real substance beyond their ability to rile people up and base their positions on anecdotes rather than facts. I believe that conservatism can do better than that. My comparison would be Rob Ford (one of the most ill-suited people to ever hold mayoral office in the history of this country) and John Tory, current incumbent. Both are "conservatives", but Tory is what I have in mind. Or Mulroney. Or Harper on his better days. There is something viscerally attractive about giving in to your emotions and falling in behind the populist screamer, but I'm not sure it leads anywhere useful. And, if history is any guide, it can lead to quite bad things.
Anyway, that's what I think. There is a place for moderate, intelligent conservatism, but getting there and holding that moral ground will not be easy.
If, for example, a person asks about the responsibilities of immigrants to adapt to Canadian society in a reasonable way (ie: don't kill your daughter because she goes to the mall wearing shorts), then you may be characterized as as a "racist, or "anti-immigrant".
If a person wants to lawfully own firearms for hunting, or sport shooting, or legitimate collecting, and defends the right to do so with minimal reasonable legal restrictions, one may be called down as a "redneck" or "gun freak".
If a person wants to publicly express a divergent opinion (ie: pro-Israel, pro-border control, etc) that person may find themselves unable to speak publicly because of extreme disruption or even risk of violence.
All of this is wrong, and stupid. All it does is repel and marginalize people who are, I think really quite moderate conservatives. They become embittered, and the gap widens.
The people largely responsible for inspiring this behaviour are, in my opinion, those who you could properly call the "left wing". They are as far to that end of the spectrum as La Meute and others are to the right end of it. Some of them are types like Black Bloc, anarchists, etc. And of course, if you are way out on the left, everything and everybody is to the right of you.
And vice versa.
But here is where we get into a problem: guilt by association, or bumper-stickering. In between the two wings are, I think, all the rest of us, who shade more or less around a centre point. But we get associated with the more extreme ends. Some examples:
"I believe in the private ownership of firearms" Bumper sticker: Gun Freak! Sandy Hook Denier! Neo-nazi!!
"I believe gay people should be able to marry" Bumper sticker: Destroyer of Traditional Marriage! You hate Christianity! You support pedophiles!
And so on. You get what I mean. Bumper stickering is easy, because we can put people into a little box and stop thinking about what they're saying. Because, after all, we know all "liberals" think the same way, right? And all "conservatives" seldom differ either, right?
So, what can moderate conservatives do? Circle the wagons and curse "Main Stream Society"? More marginalization and embitterment. I think there are three possible courses of action, all of them requiring forbearance and persistence, and none guaranteed to succeed:
-First, publicly disassociate from the "far right". Don't wink at them, or tolerate them, or say "well maybe they have a point, y'know". Make it very clear that racism, bigotry, medieval misogyny and various forms of paranoia are not part of the make up of moderate conservatism. In my opinion this is a big failure on the part of moderate conservatism. We like to demand that moderate Muslims publicly disavow Islamic extremists: the same principle applies, in my opinion;
-Second,continue to point out clearly and rationally, in as many venues as possible (and there are many venues) that honest questioning and free public expression are a basic element of our society. But this means two things that may be distasteful: accepting the vital role of a free media in a democracy, and accepting the free expression of people we don't agree with.
In my opinion there is almost a knee-jerk reaction by many people who might call themselves "conservatives", to the media as being agents of Satan. The media is not there to be anybody's friend: they are there to "print the news and raise hell". In our Canadian political system, with no recall legislation and the power of majority governments, the media is really the only protection against government misbehaviour in the four or five years between elections. No government I have ever seen is going to willingly ferret out and report its own stupidity and misbehaviuor. As Thomas Jefferson warned:
.
The media is what it is, and it does what it does. It's like the weather: it's there. Learning to use it is more productive than banging your head against, or muttering darkly about shutting it down.
In terms of free expression, are conservatives willing to tolerate it for opposing viewpoints? Some people might argue that this is a pointless question, because public expression is already dominated and controlled by "Them". But I still think it is a good "look in the mirror" question; and
-Finally, resist the temptation to vote for right-wing populist demagogues who have little real substance beyond their ability to rile people up and base their positions on anecdotes rather than facts. I believe that conservatism can do better than that. My comparison would be Rob Ford (one of the most ill-suited people to ever hold mayoral office in the history of this country) and John Tory, current incumbent. Both are "conservatives", but Tory is what I have in mind. Or Mulroney. Or Harper on his better days. There is something viscerally attractive about giving in to your emotions and falling in behind the populist screamer, but I'm not sure it leads anywhere useful. And, if history is any guide, it can lead to quite bad things.
Anyway, that's what I think. There is a place for moderate, intelligent conservatism, but getting there and holding that moral ground will not be easy.
- Reaction score
- 2,799
- Points
- 940
I agree whole-heartedly.pbi said:
As a self-identified moderate conservative, who has spent time at
) bother me much less than the 'extreme right,' because of guilt by association. Mind you, both ends of the spectrum tend to fail on that "intelligent" part -- hell, just read some of the posts on this site. : The more central -- left and right -- seem capable of having discussions without foaming at the mouth; the others, well again, see this site.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,240
- Points
- 1,160
pbi said:
Agree wholeheartedly with your whole of your post but that quoted part above particularly struck home.
I've been just right of centre for some time both by thought and vote. I've said many times here that I'm a fiscal conservative but flirt with being more liberal socially (as I believe most centrist conservatives in Canada are)
However, there certainly have been times (especially when discussing the disaster that is US politics at this time) that the further right than me conservatives (and not necessarily far right) in this forum have treated me (and others like me) as being within the camp of the shrieking radical left (of which I don't think there really are any participating in this forum).
:cheers:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
FJAG said:
Exactly. This is a symptom of the widening gap. "You are either fer us er agin us!!". This binary view is very simple and feels very good. It is also easy to communicate to a mob or by a Tweet.
What I want, and I hope we all want, is to be able to think about what we support and what we don't. Not just knee-jerk into it because somebody starts screaming about "racism" or "patriotism" or whatever other banner term they want to wave about. God gave us free will and judgement: I'm sure He expects us to use it.
- Reaction score
- 1,508
- Points
- 1,060
Jarnhamar said:
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/01/goodale-says-gun-legislation-coming-wake-parkland-student-shootings/
only keeping their stupid campaign promises, I'm not against firearm regulations at all but there is no gun problem in Canada
- Reaction score
- 3,105
- Points
- 1,160
mariomike said:If nothing else, it has certainly expanded my vocabulary. Cuck, SJW, sheeple, proud boys, deep state, safe space, triggered, Soros, special snowflake, ...
Don't forget fascist, NAZI, misogynist, racist, redneck, hick, gun nut...
- Reaction score
- 3,105
- Points
- 1,160
Colour me un-shocked.mariomike said:I heard all of those long before I owned a computer.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,240
- Points
- 1,160
CNN article:
Banning assault rifles would be constitutional
by Page Pate, CNN Legal Analyst
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/opinions/banning-assault-rifles-would-be-constitutional-pate/index.html
:cheers:
Banning assault rifles would be constitutional
by Page Pate, CNN Legal Analyst
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/opinions/banning-assault-rifles-would-be-constitutional-pate/index.html
:cheers:
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,721
- Points
- 1,160
pbi said:
Thanks PBI. I get what you guys are saying. Personally speaking 95% of the angst or abuse I've received online has been from Conservatives. That's probably because I stick to generally conservative spaces but still, some of them are quite vitriolic. Firearm owners and especially veterans. Veterans can be pretty bad.
Edited and removed some points as to not belabour the issue or be too political.
Canada doesn't have a gun problem. But the more I think about it the more I believe gun control in Canada is an ace up trudeau's sleeve that he's going to pull out come election time. The relatively non-invasive plan the Liberals are talking avout so far (which IMO seems helpful) will ramp up and add some craziness.
Like this assault weapon stuff, which is bullshit. It's a media driven ambiguous phrase. If we adopted NY's terminology for assault weapons then if I took my great grandfathers 85 year old Winchester 1964 lever action rifle and screwed a vertical grip into the wood it would be an assault weapon. Or if I added a pistol grip to my 870 shotgun.
Canada has some stupid laws in some ways but in others we seem pretty open, so far.
Maybe a LEO can correct me if I'm wrong but I can take a .50 caliber anti-tank rifle, sling it on my back (unloaded) and legally walk through down town Ottawa to a gunsmith. The only RCMP transport law I see is that a non-restricted rifle has to be unloaded. But aside from someone trying to rob an armored car with an (inoperable) 50 caliber years ago, once, it's a non-issue crime wise. 50'000 some AR15s are registered in Canada, how many are used in crimes?
MECs recent decision to drop 5 companies from their product list because the companies are owned by a parent company that deals with firearms in the US is bullshit as well. The CEO claimed that MEC got thousands of emails asking them when they will drop companies like Camelback and Bolle. I call bullshit because I can't picture "thousands" of Canadians realizing that Camelbak was associated with firearms. I sure as hell didn't.
The company made a big scene of discussing the issue and taking imput from their loyal customers, where they finally decided to drop the companies last night. Total virtue signalling. When you look at the majority of feedback across their social media it's 99% against them dropping companies. It looks like MEC just tried to jump on the anti-NRA train. Hoping they suffer for it.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 30,896
- Points
- 1,160
There was a time that Canadians guessed that Americans were inferior to us in most ways.
We went through an awkward infatuation stage where we wanted the US to pay more attention to us, so we started acting and speaking like them.
Now we know for sure
We went through an awkward infatuation stage where we wanted the US to pay more attention to us, so we started acting and speaking like them.
Now we know for sure
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,951
- Points
- 1,160
The Rand Corporation has taken a look at firearms policies and their impacts in the USA. They have determined that the research does not exist to support many of the conclusions being reached in public discussion, but there is evidence to support acknowledging some trends with varying degrees of confidence.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html
They are arguing that more research is needed to understand the problem in the US. That is probably a good thing. However, some in this thread may be unhappy to note that not all identified trends support theories posted in this thread. I assume the same trends would be found in Canada if we were to expre t with different policies and measure the real world results.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html
They are arguing that more research is needed to understand the problem in the US. That is probably a good thing. However, some in this thread may be unhappy to note that not all identified trends support theories posted in this thread. I assume the same trends would be found in Canada if we were to expre t with different policies and measure the real world results.
Attachments
- Reaction score
- 1,471
- Points
- 1,260
Jarnhamar said:
According to the Miami Herald ( February 27, 2018 ),
"Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag".
That is not meant to argue. "All I know is just what I read in the papers, ( and that's an alibi for my ignorance. )"
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 865
- Points
- 1,160
Old news from five days ago, but another incident of a farmer/rancher defending his property. This time n Alberta.
Rural landowners stand behind Okotoks man charged in shooting
Rural landowners stand behind Okotoks man charged in shooting
- Reaction score
- 4,541
- Points
- 1,160
Clearly we need to ban 10 round magazines, because they're easily concealable. 50 round drums are much safer. :rofl:
- Status
Similar threads
