BBO Discussion Forums: Oh the Irony - BBO Discussion Forums

No doubt our views are at least somewhat influenced by our early lives. Let me give my (non-) military experience. I think it was repeated many times across the country.

As my 1956 high school graduation approached, I wanted to go to college but I was considering joining the Navy. Partly this was a matter of finances, partly it was the general view at the time that boys would be serving in the military for a couple of years sooner or later, and there was something to be said for sooner. When I was thirteen or so I thought I might be a Marine, but I also thought then that I might become a professional race car driver. When I was 17 the Navy sounded like the right choice. My mother had once observed that you don't hear all that often about ships going down, and also you eat better.

But I got a scholarship. Probably I would have headed off to college anyway, one way or the other, but that settled it.

In 1956, few people had philosophical discussions about the military. A couple of years service was common, some people made a career of it, there was no war. It was a non-issue.

I think I would have been a bad fit for the military, but then the military was used to that. In college I had an older friend who had been in the Army. It was a serious non-alignment of lifestyles. He told me of the time he and a buddy requested a pass to go into the nearby town to attend an opera. The sergeant gave them the passes but suggested it would be better if they just went into town and got laid like everybody else. I wasn't the opera type (and I really am still not), but I spent a lot of time with mathematics and physics books.

Anyway, I have gone through life without anyone ever pointing a gun at me. If we look at history, or look at the world today, I realize that this makes me very fortunate. I would like other people's lives to be equally fortunate.

Meanwhile, there's this.

From the cited article:

Quote

Well, it's an opinion. Let me say a word about certified courses. A couple of years back there was a certified course in CPR. Becky and I figured sure, why not, so we signed up. We learned very, very, little. Certainly not enough to actually be trusted with the procedure. The deal was this. Various jobs require certification in CPR, and this certification has to be updated from time to time. You do this by attending a certification course. We have all seen the Wizard of Oz, right? You pay, you attend, you have your certification updated.

This happened to be CPR. The general practice is widespread. How many times have you been at the bridge table and heard an opponent announce exactly what the rules are, finishing with the authoritative pronouncement "I am a certified director". Occasionally the claim is correct, quite often it is not.


When the Sheriff says that his office is no longer capable of giving adequate protection, I believe people should take this seriously. I am far less confident that they should all arm themselves and take some half-baked certification class.

I would suggest that perhaps a director who does that is more certifiable than certified.

Half-baked classes in anything are a waste of time and money. Good classes are worth the time and money. The trick is to avoid the former and find the latter.

Re: CPR: My father was a cardiologist. Not only that, but when he and my stepmother moved to Woodstock, NY (yeah, that Woodstock) CPR was a new thing. They spent many weekends voluntarily going around to train firefighters, EMTs, police, and sheriff's deputies in the techniques. So I expect he knew what he was doing. The trick today would be to find an instructor who knows what he's doing. How difficult that would be I don't know.

kenberg, on 2013-January-29, 17:03, said:

Although I'm willing, if necessary, to try to defend my home, a favorable outcome could never be guaranteed.

Perhaps the sheriff is trying indirectly to alert folks to the dangers of cutting government expenditures to the bone. He might do well to provide his constituents a link to the NY Times article mentioned earlier in this thread.

PassedOut, on 2013-January-29, 17:23, said:

I also was thinking that the Sheriff may have an unstated agenda with his remarks. That ball doesn't always bounce as planned.

Just to repeat the Bill of Rights is not a list of rights. No right to bear arms was created by it.



The purpose of the Bill of rights is to place limits on the federal govt, limits on the power of states and most importantly limits on the power of the Majority.


Over our history the Bill of Rights has been voted down in Polls.

----




I understand outright banning handguns or rifles is against the Constitution, we can debate on how best to reduce gun violence. If this is only demographics..ok.....if others have a solution.....great.



As our President has said again and again we live in a complicated and dangerous world.


Can we all agree that we live in a dangerous world and move forward from that point: even those that strongly believe that to own a gun is not a convex move?

--


/side note I think it is a fair debate to have to ask does owning a gun, any gun, increase the chances or reduce the chances you or a loved one will die as a result of gun violence but that may not be the best way of framing the issue.??
Example the well known bumper sticker...GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.


BTW2 NOT THAT i encourage anyone to live a life of bumper stickers.

mike777, on 2013-January-29, 22:18, said:

That is an interesting point of view. I doubt that you will have much support for it in reported caselaw, however.

Arriving late in the debate and mostly with an European POV but... do those who claim that owning guns is a way to limit the government's power really think that if the government wanted to go after YOU (of course Obama wants to go after you and force you to convert to Islam... or not but let's not get into that debate), owning a gun (or 50, or even a tank (I won't say anything about atomic bombs though)) will prevent that?

antonylee, on 2013-January-31, 03:10, said:

No.

But these wackoes are not alone. There are a lot of them. In some small remote areas they are even in the majority. And when these guys get a "freedom or death" attitude the .... hits the fan. It has happened before, it probably will happen again.

Rik

antonylee, on 2013-January-31, 03:10, said:

I think the answer is yes, there is some such thought. They would have to explain it, I don't get it. It is one of those arguments where, if I wanted to pursue it, I would set the person down and ask that they explain just how they envision this taking place.Somehow the U.S. government will be taken over by tyrants, and then the people will realize the government must be overthrown by force, and they will all get their guns out and attack, well, attack someone. And democracy will be restored. Far fetched doesn't come close to describing this. Far more likely, if anything at all like this is to happen, is that a group of ardent true believers will come to think that a democratically elected government is tyrannical and they must get out their guns and act. The assassination of McKinley in 1901 was along these lines, I think, and the assassination of Lincoln at least had some of these aspects. In Europe, there were attempted assassinations of DeGaulle. I am not sure what is now known with certainty of the murder of Olaf Palme.

At any rate, the assassinations of Lincoln and McKinley are historical fact and they seem to me to be the far most likely outcome of this philosophy that we have to bear arms to protect ourselves from tyranny.

The arguments vary. One day we must protect ourselves from tyrannical government, the next day from armed thugs trying to rape our wives and daughters, the next day from armed madmen shooting up a school or a movie theater. I don't think I am indifferent to the dangers, I just don't think that holstering a pistol when I go out for a walk is the right way to go about addressing such problems. I think quite a few people see things as I do, but maybe we need some political muscle.

Our discussion on the use of force came to mind when I read this piece about the Chuck Hagel nomination for US Secretary of Defense: Sharp Exchanges Expected in Hearing on Hagel Nomination

Quote

Chuck Hagel's attitude toward using force -- albeit on a much larger scale than we've been discussing -- seems eminently sensible to me. The use of deadly force, while sometimes unavoidable, has to be a last resort.

If people who had been wounded on a war took the war decisions, and people who had suffered from poverty run economic decisions, we would live in a happier world.

kenberg, on 2013-January-31, 07:23, said:

Are you using maybe in that last sentence in the same way D. H. Lawrence used it in Lady Chatterley's Lover

Quote

or the way Ring Lardner used it in You know me Al?

Quote

That Hagel quote in PassedOut's post is amazing. How cool would it be if he gets the opportunity to influence policy? What a contrast with professional military guys like McCain and Powell.

PassedOut, on 2013-January-31, 07:58, said:

I agree completely. Of course, sometimes the Monday morning quarterbacks will tell you that you should have done more to resolve the situation (whatever it was) peacefully rather than using force. And sometimes they'll be wrong, but you'll get crucified by the media anyway.

Be interesting to see how Hagel does as SecDef. Assuming he gets past the confirmation hearings.

y66, on 2013-January-31, 08:36, said:

Maybe

Where is the line drawn? IS there a line?

http://www.motherjon...-mass-shootings

Normally, living in Australia I would not presume to express any opinion on US laws, but may I offer one thought. If I were concerned with guarding against a tyranical minority taking over my country I would fear the use of robots in accumclating wealth and power in a few hands.

While oppression by drones may not be feasible in America, I think Assad would be in a much stronger position if he had a plentiful supply of drones.

I do not think I am a Luddite but I would be interested in posters views on computers and robots taking over jobs, and on drones - I think the latter are a two-edged sword: At the moment they suit the west but what a weapon for a terror group!