I find it fascinating how so many of the same folks who have the least amount of faith and trust in our government are more than willing to let them be the only motherfuckers to have guns. Or am I wrong there?
Explain to me how you arming the people is going to be a constructive opposition to some hypothetical despotic regime. Seriously, what do you see going down? I can't fathom how whatever you envision, even if feasible, is a better option than changing the system from within.
I maintain that anyone getting on TV and promoting either side/B> on the day of or the day after is just trying to score political points off a tragedy and they have my undivided, utter contempt.
Maybe I'm thinking too much of this, but I wanna ask people like Odub. How do you think this will affect the image of the Asian male?
I'd hate to be living as an Asian in Vermont right about now.
I don't think it's going to do much in the long-run. It's not a good look, certainly, but one crazy psycho mass murderer isn't enough to challenge the dominant media images of Asian men. As Paul Nice put it - some what crudely - we're not inundated with images of Asian (East Asian, I mean) men as violent or threatening in the same way we've come to associate Middle Eastern men and, of course, the dominant image of Black men.
There'll be some notable bullshit - I guarantee - from media sources trying to create some kind of "Korean pathology" that can explain this guy's actions but that'll be good for about 5 media minutes and then we'll move back to something else.
On the other hand, if there's suddenly a wave of Asian American mass murderers that sweeps the nation...or if we decided to invade, say, North Korea, well, that'd be a different story.
I hate to say this but one could say it's been the year of the Korean American man given Yul Kwon, Daniel Dae Kim and now...Seung Cho.
Explain to me how you arming the people is going to be a constructive opposition to some hypothetical despotic regime. Seriously, what do you see going down? I can't fathom how whatever you envision, even if feasible, is a better option than changing the system from within.
Explain "changing the system from within".
Seriously Danno, the fact that a great majority of Americans are already armed is a good a deterrent to any prospective totalitarian regime that I can think of. No matter how unlikely. And no, I'm not shaking in my militia boots, hiding in the hills of Montana waiting for the New World Order to appear on the horizon. But not for nothing, the Third Reich was not that long ago either. And history does have a funny way of repeating itself every few generations. Call me a reactionary, but let me put it to you like this... Do you think Cambodia would've lost a third of their population under Pol Pot if the citizenry had equal access to arms with the Khmer Rouge? Would Castro's regime still be hanging on to life if the populous of Cuba was allowed to carry arms? Serious questions.
I'd hate to be living as an Asian in Vermont right about now.
I think the Asians in VT will sleep fine tonight. Asians in the South/Mid Atlantic?
In that case, no worse than normal.
Hahahaha. But seriously, this says little about Asians and volumes about people with undiagnosed dementia and isolated loner psychosis that abounds in our modern society.
Yeah, I mean, if this were a white shooter...like MOST rampage killers...there wouldn't be an attempt at constructing a social pathology (just an individual psychological one). But in this case, Cho's racial difference is, unsurprisingly, becoming a key focus even though, really, it seems rather secondary especially considering that Cho was, for all expressed purposes, Korean American.
That's not to say his ethnicity or experiences of being Korean American don't play a role. But that speaks to an individual pathology much more than a cultural one.
I'd hate to be living as an Asian in Vermont right about now.
I think the Asians in VT will sleep fine tonight. Asians in the South/Mid Atlantic?
WOOPS! I'm so out of it. Virginia...duh.
Dude....don't feel too bad, about 2 months ago I was in a bar and they had a basketball game on the tube. I checked the score and thought. "WTF, Vermont is beating Duke".
I'd hate to be living as an Asian in Vermont right about now.
I think the Asians in VT will sleep fine tonight. Asians in the South/Mid Atlantic?
WOOPS! I'm so out of it. Virginia...duh.
Dude....don't feel too bad, about 2 months ago I was in a bar and they had a basketball game on the tube. I checked the score and thought. "WTF, Vermont is beating Duke".
Only later did I realize "VT" was Virginia Tech.
haha. Naw, I knew it was virginia tech, just being totally absent-minded.
Explain to me how you arming the people is going to be a constructive opposition to some hypothetical despotic regime. Seriously, what do you see going down? I can't fathom how whatever you envision, even if feasible, is a better option than changing the system from within.
Explain "changing the system from within".
Seriously Danno, the fact that a great majority of Americans are already armed is a good a deterrent to any prospective totalitarian regime that I can think of. No matter how unlikely. And no, I'm not shaking in my militia boots, hiding in the hills of Montana waiting for the New World Order to appear on the horizon. But not for nothing, the Third Reich was not that long ago either. And history does have a funny way of repeating itself every few generations. Call me a reactionary, but let me put it to you like this... Do you think Cambodia would've lost a third of their population under Pol Pot if the citizenry had equal access to arms with the Khmer Rouge? Would Castro's regime still be hanging on to life if the populous of Cuba was allowed to carry arms? Serious questions.
I see your point, but I'm not convinced. Didn't the Nazis impose themselves on Weimar Germany? I believe normative history holds that a good portion of Germany was comfortable with Nazism.
I don't see armed rebellion as especially constructive. Yes, Castro brought down a brutal regime, but he simply replaced it with his own. What makes you think another armed rebellion would be different? I don't trust an armed mob to represent the best interests of my country (or me). Armed mobs are not known for restraint, common sense, and commitment to good governance. Do you want Charlton Heston and the NRA shooting their way to power? I'll take an Orange Revolution over the Cuban Revolution any day.
I'll fight for the rule of law to keep proverbial Nazis out of power rather than head to the bar, tell the boys to get their guns, and start shooting for change.
Yeah, I mean, if this were a white shooter...like MOST rampage killers...there wouldn't be an attempt at constructing a social pathology (just an individual psychological one). But in this case, Cho's racial difference is, unsurprisingly, becoming a key focus even though, really, it seems rather secondary especially considering that Cho was, for all expressed purposes, Korean American.
That's not to say his ethnicity or experiences of being Korean American don't play a role. But that speaks to an individual pathology much more than a cultural one.
I hope most Americans think of it this way. Although I doubt it. I can already see comedians cracking jokes about "don't mess with him, he might karate chop you or go on a rampage". nawmean? Especially, since there isn't a solid image and identity for Asians like there is for Caucasians, African-Americans, and Mexicans. Atleast that's the impression I get.
It probably won't go to the extent of Middle-Eastern people post 9/11 harrassed as terrorists, but still. This incident certainly will not work favorably for the Asian male in this country.
I'd hate to be living as an Asian in Vermont right about now.
I think the Asians in VT will sleep fine tonight. Asians in the South/Mid Atlantic?
In that case, no worse than normal.
Hahahaha. But seriously, this says little about Asians and volumes about people with undiagnosed dementia and isolated loner psychosis that abounds in our modern society.
really, you think loner psychosis abounds in modern society ?
i mean i'd say maybe 10% of the population is loner and of those 10% maybe .00001% ever hurt anyone because of it.
also i should remind people psychosis does not mean necessarily violence...i guess most of you know that but they've done studies and mentally ill people actually have a lower rate of violence than the 'normal' population.
So let me get this straight... You'd rather that the only people in this country to have guns would be cops and the government of George W. Bush? You are cool with that?
Personally, no, I'm not. But I also don't particularly like guns and therefore don't own any, but that's freedom of choice and all that--I'm not interested in banning guns just because I don't like them.
However, I have yet to hear a single non-paranoid reason why any citizen needs to have an AK, for example.
So yes, I am in favor of regulating guns, of setting limits. This does not mean I am in favor of abolishing guns. I don't like the way this discussion tilts heavily into either/or category: "Either you support the right to bear arms, or you want to take away everybody's gun!" No, I'm in that nice middle ground that supports limitations.
Explain to me how you arming the people is going to be a constructive opposition to some hypothetical despotic regime. Seriously, what do you see going down? I can't fathom how whatever you envision, even if feasible, is a better option than changing the system from within.
Explain "changing the system from within".
Seriously Danno, the fact that a great majority of Americans are already armed is a good a deterrent to any prospective totalitarian regime that I can think of. No matter how unlikely. And no, I'm not shaking in my militia boots, hiding in the hills of Montana waiting for the New World Order to appear on the horizon. But not for nothing, the Third Reich was not that long ago either. And history does have a funny way of repeating itself every few generations. Call me a reactionary, but let me put it to you like this... Do you think Cambodia would've lost a third of their population under Pol Pot if the citizenry had equal access to arms with the Khmer Rouge? Would Castro's regime still be hanging on to life if the populous of Cuba was allowed to carry arms? Serious questions.
I see your point, but I'm not convinced. Didn't the Nazis impose themselves on Weimar Germany? I believe normative history holds that a good portion of Germany was comfortable with Nazism.
I don't see armed rebellion as especially constructive. Yes, Castro brought down a brutal regime, but he simply replaced it with his own. What makes you think another armed rebellion would be different? I don't trust an armed mob to represent the best interests of my country (or me). Armed mobs are not known for restraint, common sense, and commitment to good governance. Do you want Charlton Heston and the NRA shooting their way to power? I'll take an Orange Revolution over the Cuban Revolution any day.
I'll fight for the rule of law to keep proverbial Nazis out of power rather than head to the bar, tell the boys to get their guns, and start shooting for change.
Danno is pretty much right - although rather than being "comfortable" with Nazism, I'd say a critical mass of people in Weimar Germany decided to take it over what they had experienced for the previous decade. They basically sold out. It can happen here.
People got to get over the guns thing already, it is irrelevant to the dictatorial power structure. Compare Iraq under Saddam and Cuba under Castro, very different numbers of AK-47s distributed among the population, but both (have) lasted for generations. It's not about one bad guy having all the guns, it's about the power structure. If it became time to rise up against the government here, we wouldn't be fighting the Prez and his army dudes. We would be making the decision to kill if necessary our brothers, cousins, neighbours, and ex-classmates who happened to be on the other side of the dividing line, for whatever reason they found themselves there. And right now we are collectively far too well-fed to countenance that.
It's about critical mass, not individuals with semi-automatics. At some point unknowable chaos becomes preferable to rigid oppression. Then it's by any means necessary. It wasn't AK-47s that beat the US Occupation in Iraq, it was the overbearing opinion of most of the population, together with a lot of IEDs.
I don't trust an armed mob to represent the best interests of my country (or me).
Exactly, if the armed militia ever had to save "us" from the Federal Govt, you can bet they would do a lot of pre-emptive housekeeping along the way. By that I mean genocide of undesirables, many of whom post here. Right now I prefer graemlins.
To my knowledge, most AKs are semi-automatic. They are more accurate than a shotgun. They have a faster firing rate than a shotgun. Just a few reasons...
I don't see armed rebellion as especially constructive.
Except in the case of the United States? That's a rather large elephant in the hypothetical room that is your argument. But then, I never understood why Canada continues to pay lip service to the Queen.
I don't see armed rebellion as especially constructive.
Except in the case of the United States? That's a rather large elephant in the hypothetical room that is your argument. But then, I never understood why Canada continues to pay lip service to the Queen.
Different strokes for different folks.
On the flipside is the French Revolution, a merciless and hypocritical revolution.
I don't see armed rebellion as especially constructive.
Except in the case of the United States? That's a rather large elephant in the hypothetical room that is your argument. But then, I never understood why Canada continues to pay lip service to the Queen.
Different strokes for different folks.
On the flipside is the French Revolution, a merciless and hypocritical revolution.
Oh, there are several examples of revolutions that made the situation no better or markedly worse. Make no mistake - I'm not arguing that we should arm everyone and have a good ol' revolution every once in a while for shits and giggles. However, the ultimate check on governmental power is the will of the people. And while some revolutions come peacefully (the taking of the Winter Palace in the Russian Revolution for example), some require force. And by force, I mean force of arms.
Comments
Explain to me how you arming the people is going to be a constructive opposition to some hypothetical despotic regime. Seriously, what do you see going down? I can't fathom how whatever you envision, even if feasible, is a better option than changing the system from within.
I'd hate to be living as an Asian in Vermont right about now.
I don't think it's going to do much in the long-run. It's not a good look, certainly, but one crazy psycho mass murderer isn't enough to challenge the dominant media images of Asian men. As Paul Nice put it - some what crudely - we're not inundated with images of Asian (East Asian, I mean) men as violent or threatening in the same way we've come to associate Middle Eastern men and, of course, the dominant image of Black men.
There'll be some notable bullshit - I guarantee - from media sources trying to create some kind of "Korean pathology" that can explain this guy's actions but that'll be good for about 5 media minutes and then we'll move back to something else.
On the other hand, if there's suddenly a wave of Asian American mass murderers that sweeps the nation...or if we decided to invade, say, North Korea, well, that'd be a different story.
I hate to say this but one could say it's been the year of the Korean American man given Yul Kwon, Daniel Dae Kim and now...Seung Cho.
Explain "changing the system from within".
Seriously Danno, the fact that a great majority of Americans are already armed is a good a deterrent to any prospective totalitarian regime that I can think of. No matter how unlikely.
And no, I'm not shaking in my militia boots, hiding in the hills of Montana waiting for the New World Order to appear on the horizon.
But not for nothing, the Third Reich was not that long ago either.
And history does have a funny way of repeating itself every few generations.
Call me a reactionary, but let me put it to you like this...
Do you think Cambodia would've lost a third of their population under Pol Pot if the citizenry had equal access to arms with the Khmer Rouge?
Would Castro's regime still be hanging on to life if the populous of Cuba was allowed to carry arms?
Serious questions.
I think the Asians in VT will sleep fine tonight.
Asians in the South/Mid Atlantic?
In that case, no worse than normal.
Hahahaha.
But seriously, this says little about Asians and volumes about people with undiagnosed dementia and isolated loner psychosis that abounds in our modern society.
WOOPS! I'm so out of it. Virginia...duh.
That's not to say his ethnicity or experiences of being Korean American don't play a role. But that speaks to an individual pathology much more than a cultural one.
Dude....don't feel too bad, about 2 months ago I was in a bar and they had a basketball game on the tube. I checked the score and thought. "WTF, Vermont is beating Duke".
Only later did I realize "VT" was Virginia Tech.
haha. Naw, I knew it was virginia tech, just being totally absent-minded.
maybe soulstrut is maturing.
I see your point, but I'm not convinced. Didn't the Nazis impose themselves on Weimar Germany? I believe normative history holds that a good portion of Germany was comfortable with Nazism.
I don't see armed rebellion as especially constructive. Yes, Castro brought down a brutal regime, but he simply replaced it with his own. What makes you think another armed rebellion would be different? I don't trust an armed mob to represent the best interests of my country (or me). Armed mobs are not known for restraint, common sense, and commitment to good governance. Do you want Charlton Heston and the NRA shooting their way to power? I'll take an Orange Revolution over the Cuban Revolution any day.
I'll fight for the rule of law to keep proverbial Nazis out of power rather than head to the bar, tell the boys to get their guns, and start shooting for change.
I hope most Americans think of it this way. Although I doubt it. I can already see comedians cracking jokes about "don't mess with him, he might karate chop you or go on a rampage". nawmean? Especially, since there isn't a solid image and identity for Asians like there is for Caucasians, African-Americans, and Mexicans. Atleast that's the impression I get.
It probably won't go to the extent of Middle-Eastern people post 9/11 harrassed as terrorists, but still. This incident certainly will not work favorably for the Asian male in this country.
really, you think loner psychosis abounds in modern society ?
i mean i'd say maybe 10% of the population is loner and of those 10% maybe .00001% ever hurt anyone because of it.
also i should remind people psychosis does not mean necessarily violence...i guess most of you know that but they've done studies and mentally ill people actually have a lower rate of violence than the 'normal' population.
Personally, no, I'm not. But I also don't particularly like guns and therefore don't own any, but that's freedom of choice and all that--I'm not interested in banning guns just because I don't like them.
However, I have yet to hear a single non-paranoid reason why any citizen needs to have an AK, for example.
So yes, I am in favor of regulating guns, of setting limits. This does not mean I am in favor of abolishing guns. I don't like the way this discussion tilts heavily into either/or category: "Either you support the right to bear arms, or you want to take away everybody's gun!" No, I'm in that nice middle ground that supports limitations.
On a different note, John Derbyshire can eat a fat dick for this one.
That's an amazing way to blame the victim.
This is also why blogging is not such a great thing for public discourse.
Agreed and agreed.
Danno is pretty much right - although rather than being "comfortable" with Nazism, I'd say a critical mass of people in Weimar Germany decided to take it over what they had experienced for the previous decade. They basically sold out. It can happen here.
People got to get over the guns thing already, it is irrelevant to the dictatorial power structure. Compare Iraq under Saddam and Cuba under Castro, very different numbers of AK-47s distributed among the population, but both (have) lasted for generations. It's not about one bad guy having all the guns, it's about the power structure. If it became time to rise up against the government here, we wouldn't be fighting the Prez and his army dudes. We would be making the decision to kill if necessary our brothers, cousins, neighbours, and ex-classmates who happened to be on the other side of the dividing line, for whatever reason they found themselves there. And right now we are collectively far too well-fed to countenance that.
It's about critical mass, not individuals with semi-automatics. At some point unknowable chaos becomes preferable to rigid oppression. Then it's by any means necessary. It wasn't AK-47s that beat the US Occupation in Iraq, it was the overbearing opinion of most of the population, together with a lot of IEDs.
The worst thing about the internet is that it allows anyone and everyone express their views for the whole world to see.
Like I said, I know several hunters who use AKs.
But why? Because they're shitty shots and need to be pull a Tasty Taste and "spray. the area." in order to hit the animal?
That's just unsporting.
Exactly, if the armed militia ever had to save "us" from the Federal Govt, you can bet they would do a lot of pre-emptive housekeeping along the way. By that I mean genocide of undesirables, many of whom post here. Right now I prefer graemlins.
Except in the case of the United States? That's a rather large elephant in the hypothetical room that is your argument. But then, I never understood why Canada continues to pay lip service to the Queen.
Different strokes for different folks.
Then of course, we'd simultaneously have to find a single American male with any balls left between their legs, so I guess the point is moot anyway.
I have balls between my legs but they are for love not hate.
What is it you use your balls for?
On the flipside is the French Revolution, a merciless and hypocritical revolution.
Oh, there are several examples of revolutions that made the situation no better or markedly worse. Make no mistake - I'm not arguing that we should arm everyone and have a good ol' revolution every once in a while for shits and giggles. However, the ultimate check on governmental power is the will of the people. And while some revolutions come peacefully (the taking of the Winter Palace in the Russian Revolution for example), some require force. And by force, I mean force of arms.