imported post
Tell me what information is lacking in this day and age to prevent an informed decision on the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd amendment is clearly written, and any confusion about the wording can be cleared up by a simple investigation into word usage at the time of it's writing.
You and I might think that there is no confusion about the wording, but that is not the reality of it. And when I said "information" I meant "the details" of modern gun ownership. You'll see what I mean much later in my reply.
Snip: And getting back to the beginning of your reply in regards to "Tell me what information is lacking in this day and age..." This is the information most people who are ignorant of guns are lacking. They need intelligent encounters, like the aforementioned, to make an informed decision about the current gun debate. Not rants about "Kommiefornia".
I don't know what exactly you mean by " "the details" of modern gun ownership". Why would the 2nd Amendment mean anything different today than when it was written?
I read the whole thing and still didn't see the answer to my question. It sounded like the Obama Campaign,
"We need change. Change we can believe in. Change for hope. We need to hope for change that will cause change to allow us to hope."
WHAT?:what: The problem is that no one ever detailed the change that they were going for. Now we are seeing it, and it isless than hopeful.
You don't point out what information is lacking, only that some people are ignorant of the information which is available. Anyone who cares to investigate the facts can have access to all the information needed to understand what the 2nd Amendment is about. I agree that intelligent encounters are the best way to educate someone, but if that person does not act in an intelligent manner and will ignore facts to protect their deeply held opinions,then it can hardly be an intelligent exchange, it becomeslike trying to talk someone out of a cultat that point.
As far as the Kommiefornia comments, you are right, sometimes they are less than helpful. But, before you pass judgement you need to spend time in one of the border states that absorb Californians in large amounts, only to see the transplants try to change us into what they just left behind.
From the first article you linked:
"It's hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college."
Wow, quoting out of context, one of the favorite tactics of someone with a weak argument.
This statement was amade by Jonathan Knight, director of academic freedom and tenure for the American Association of University Professors, in reply to a question about how the disproportionately liberal bias of college faculty affects the students.
"
The question is how this translates into what happens within the academic community on such issues as curriculum, admission of students, evaluation of students, evaluation of faculty for salary and promotion."
He says that several studies show that there is little effect on the core values of students. What studies? Do you really expect him to say that they are attempting and succeeding in changing the core values of students in their schools? What would the parents who are paying for their kids education say if they were told "Thanks for sending your kids to usfor their reeducation and values training. We will see that they turn away from everything that you taught them that doesn't comply with the accepted standards."?
American Association of University Professors (AAUP), organization of college and university teachers. It was founded (1915) for the purpose of defending faculty rights, most notably
academic freedom and tenure (see
tenure , in education). It also addresses the issues of college and university government and accreditation, professional ethics, the economic status of the profession, and the status of minorities and women in the academic profession.
AAUP is the labor union for the university (CCSU), Paula Anderson is of course a member as all staff and faculty are required to be.
Funny, white guys are left out of their mission statement completely. The fact that they specifically mention "minorities and women in the academic profession"says that some people get preferential treatment in their organization. If they were looking out for true equality, they would not mention minorities or women specifically, they would all be staff or faculty.
I never said that there were no conservatives in education, just very few by comparison, and yes, I am very serious. Can you show that there is a balance of ideas in the education system?
Yes, I can. You have to understand the simple fact that the vast majority of people's political beliefs overlap greatly, e.g., someone who believes that welfare in some form is a good idea is not automatically a "flaming liberal", because he/she might also be a proponent for limited government and support an individual right to bear arms. And this why I think this has little, if any, effect in the educational system. There's your balance.
Nice story, now can you show where there is balance of ides, and not just tell an anecdote about how there could be balance?
I know several people who have gone to college (I admit that I have not), and they tell me how biased it is in the classroom. there is no room for debate in most classrooms, no opportunity to challenge the authority of the person behind the podium. Any questioning of their authority will likely affect your grade.
I also know several people in the university system, including a member of the Board of Regents,none of them display a broad overlapping of political belief. Only one is in any way a conservative, and he avoids discussing anything philosophical with the others.
And this why I think this has little, if any, effect in the educational system
The evidence would suggest otherwise.
As far as marketing to certain groups, I don't know what to say. I am friendly to everyone until they give me a reason notto be. I can't help what I am. If someone is somehow intimidated by a white male, that is their problem, I can't be an Asian woman, or anything else, I am who I am. I have friends of all backgrounds, races, and political leanings. I consider myself lucky because of them.
If people get carried away in defense of their rights, it is only because they have to defend against this kind of nonsense. The frustration can get the best of us.
And if you get "carried away" in defense of your rights, then why should people who are ignorant of guns trust you with a firearm in the first place? Are we not, as gun owners, the ones who should never get carried away? Should we not
always be calm, level headed, and never escalate? Don't we do this now when one carries a pistol?
WhenI say "get carried away" I meant that as using words that we might not usually use. Most people would understand my statement as such. This is a far cry from resorting to violence which your statement implies. If saying something that you would not normally say disqualifies you from gun possession, then I don't know anyone who could be trustedto own a gun, police and military included.
