bleeding heart

True, I don't know; it's entirely impressionistic. Like I will state that most people don't believe there are faeries in rural Ireland. I could certainly wrong about this. But I'd be willing to bet on it, were the objective truth available.

I think you've nailed it here. It probably makes no difference, however, ultimately: if Obama wins (which is likely) I would actually bet money (and I'm not a betting man, as I consider gambling irrational) that there will be no difference, none at all, to existing gun policy. As you say, Canadian gun owners are always in a much more precarious position; in fact, the current government notwithstanding, gun rights advocates are better off under American Democrats than Canadian Conservatives. And it's not, as some people say, a matter of "cultural differences," I don't think; it's a matter of differences in the political culture, if you get my distinction. Speaking, I admit, only from personal impression, I see no appetite for increased gun control...and I'm of the loony-left! Very few people give a damn, in my experience. Hell, I'm not a gun-owner myself, so I have no obvious personal horse on the target range. I just don't view legal firearms as an issue. I mean: at all. (Interestingly, there is far more appetite for it in the United States, in my view). True. On the other hand, very few people are single-issue voters (if we were, no one could ever get voted in! ) Yeah, I assume so. But part of this is thanks to regional and historical matters, quite outside of the "rights" issue. For example, here in NB, I've known a heck of a lot of gun owners; and it seems totally unrelated to voting persuasion, at least here.

Ah, so most Muslims are, indeed, "the problem." Good stuff. I repeat: I remain unafraid. And that's not boasting...most people are not afraid.

..dp

Well, aside from your slight error that Omar Khadr is not a woman, I agree with...oh, wait.

Some very educational points. I didn't realize that women--as distinctly opposed to the wiser, more sober and reasonable sex--were so shallow and trivial about political choices. Now I know. Thanks, PIK!

Then, of course, you don't think there should be a legal drinking age, or an age at which someone cannot vote...what magically happens between 15 and 18 in which such rights and priveleges are arbitrarily allowed? At any rate, there are real, actually-exisitng psychological and neurological differences between a fifteen year old and an adult. Again; drinking...and a slew of other "adult" rights and privelges. Why are you dodging this point? After all, it is germane to the very responses you're giving. Unless, as I've said, that you think a person that age should have the responsibilities of adults...but not the rights and priveleges of adults. And if this extremist statism and derision of individual rights is your stance...you should come out and say so. ??? That was my question. My point: adult responsibilities has to mean adult rights...you can't have it both ways...unless you're a totalitarian.

Further still, the question itself is an academic one, based on hypotheticals. As a thought experiment, then the answer is pretty obviously yes. But in the real world, things are rarely so simple. So it's not much good as a political argument. For example, precisely this argument was used, and many times, in support of the Iraq War.

Because the "high cost" is itself a terrible atrocity.

Oh, sure. And I'm not remonstrating others for their militant triumphalism or their callousness, which is often the result of genuine horror and pity for victims. I'm only offering a universal, if somewhat bland, lament. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were astoundingly horrific acts. Truly awful. That's not a declaration that they shouldn't have happened. It's an expression of humility and humanity.

Sure. But again, what--concretely--are the fears and concerns based upon? I agree. On the other hand, the NDP has maintained much of its "other" base, particularly among older voters (who are more apt to vote, anyway): types who are often social cosnervatives, but economic leftists. (It's little understood how many of these people exist in Canada.) These are often rural folk, hunters and gun-owners by inclination...by tradition, in fact. The NDP is politicvally very cognizant of these supporters...which explains why they've waffled on gun control issues so many, many times. I think you're right. I think that rhetoric about increasing gun control (quite unneccessary in my view) has a self-defeating effect. (Obviously, that doesn't bother me, however.)

Thanks eyeball. The missive is a sane voice in an angry wilderness on this subject.

Given that phrasing, the latter wins out, I agree. It's a horrible choice (and I personally wish it were more humbling in general)...but yes.

For me, it's always been about Omar as a Canadian anyway. Anyone who thinks a fifteen year old is legally (and morally) as responsible as an adult....I have no issue with that stance, provided the person believes a fifteen year old should be awarded all the rights and priveleges of an adult, as well. Otherwise, the argument is one that responsbilities are more improtant than rights--legally speaking--which is a statist view in the extreme, and somewhat fringe, actually, for a democratic system.

"What if" scenarios are sometimes legitimate...but in this case, I see nothing concrete behind them, and imagine it as nothing more than partisan (Republican, in this case) fear-mongering. Quite successful, perhaps, given the gun sales that you mention.

Look, you said--declared, imperiously--that libertarianism has always been only and specifically a right-wing phenomenon, and never a leftist one. Further, you claimed that my assertion to the contrary (you know--the correct assertion) only displays my ignorance, and (as usual) my lack of knowledge in "political science"...fuelled by a misunderstanding, thanks to contemporary misuses of words like "liberal," "conservative" and on and on. Now you've been proven wrong. And now, you can't even admit that you had no idea, none whatsoever, of those assertions made in declarative sentences, always accompanied by insults about others' ignorance. Well, honestly, I expected you to be monumentally dishonest...about being outed in such a way by someone you consider an ignoramus. Ouch! Research man, research...it's your friend!

European conservatism; it has nothing to do with implication. Genuine compassion is frequently the engine, though I don't expect you to abandon your religious faith in its inherent evils. Further, as per our discussion with which you refused to engage since I proved you wrong, it is not "inherently statist," but can be directly opposed to statism.

Except when they don't. As with the Nazis. At least your "far more likely" phrasing opens the door a bit, an implied eschewing of your previosu Give No Quarter approach.

You friggin' lefties with your irrelevant math.

This sounds about right. Proof positive that conservatism can be statist and draconian.

An incorrect decription, which is why almost every person with even rudimentary knowledge (and a fair bit of knowledge; and a tremendous amount of knowledge) on the subject disagrees with you. Or did you not notice that?

Mmmm. How's your research on libertarian socialism coming along? Quite well, or more conveniently ignored?

Nah, these types have always been around; if anything, there are fewer now than ever. Hell, when Raul Hilberg decided to write The Destruction of the European Jews (probably the seminal work in all of Holocaust studies, it turns out) virtually everyone, including, initially, his Jewish advisor, thought it a bad idea to "stir the pot,' so to speak. (His advisor changed his mind, however, and offered full-fledged support.) That was in 1961.

I'm sure there's truth to that...but I was responding to his idea of "left," so I don't quite see how your criticism doesn't apply to his (rather fringe-y) view.

I'm not trying to frustrate you. On the other hand, the laughable notion that the Isamists are a bunch of leftists is certainly a head-bang worthy notion, slightly to the right of Creationism.