NRA -are they Serious?!?

[vol_scouter]

Packsaddle,

 

As a matter of fact, I clearly remember the south during the 1960's. There was a great deal of anger and frustration during those years but I did not see the fear of the government that I see now. People were arming for fear of riots and needing to use a firearm to protect their families and themselves, not from the fear that the federal government was going to strip their rights from them (note that this is an observation and not a statement of my personal views). The elections of shown a polarized electorate and parties. The polarization was more complex then because southern democrats were pro-segregation whereas republicans and northern democrats were pro-integration. So the dividing lines were less clear. I tend to agree with Moosetracker on this.

 

Moosetracker,

 

One observation that made southerners bitter was that there was considerable racial discrimination in the north in the 1960's though it was not codified into law as it was in the south (which is a big difference). Nonetheless, the discrimination was present in the north (there were catholic, black, hispanic, irish, polish, etc. neighborhoods with many stories in the paper of people wandering out of 'their' neighborhood into another neighbor hood with injurious consequences). The south had court ordered busing that is still present today in some locales. However, after busing Boston was a blood bath (as had happened in some places in the south), no more northern cities were bused. If it was wrong or a bad idea, then why was it still imposed on the south? If it was a good idea, the north should have been bused as well. This made even people in the south who were pro-integration angry.

 

The discrimination in the US toward blacks, Jews, and other minorities based upon superficial features or their gender is wrong and needed to be changed. For it to happen in any reasonable timeframe required extreme measures. Those measures should have been applied uniformly wherever such discrimination occurred whether codified or not. I still see much discrimination that is accepted towards women that is still wrong. Hopefully, the US will continue to improve in the future while applying the laws and remedies fairly.

 

The anger and division in the country is most disconcerting. Congress is a microcosm of the electorate and we see how well they get alone and compromise to do the people's business reflects the deep ideological divisions currently seen in the country.

[moosetracker]

The bussing thing is what I remember because it effected me personally. But, I know it wasn't even a threat until my high school days which was in the 70's. I lived in upstate NY. For about 3 years as school let out, there was talk that in the Fall we would get divided and be bussed. It would get delayed another year, and I got to go to my school that I could walk to.

 

I don't know how my mother felt about it, it either matched my feelings or she didn't say much on the subject. But, it wasn't a big issue due to going to school with blacks. I don't even know it we (friends & I) even thought about it as a black/white issue. We didn't really care if they bused people in, expand our school & bus in. We just prayed we got the luck of the draw and got to stay in our own school. A little bit socio/economic I guess, not impressed with their schools, they were old and dirty, ours was about 6 years old so much nicer. Then it was just a matter of convience.. The problem of being on a street corner in time for a bus, the inability to stay for after school activities because you had to take the bus home.

 

I am sure there was more racial issues with others though. Just because the North is less racial, it does not mean it does not have any predjudicial people. That would be impossible to claim. NY city had it's predjudicial people against black, but it also had it's neighborhood gangs. In the gang there could be a mix of races (or not). But they were very against the other neighborhood gangs. So the prejudice may or may not be racial, but where you live and their prejudice could kill.. I think that was part of it's failure in the busing department. It was not just a black/white/brown/red/poka-dotted issue. It was a neighborhood gang issue (sometimes with racial dividing lines).

 

We would have been unhappy in our upperstate NY city to be bused, but I really don't think it would have been much more then a lot of grumbling, some name calling,some fist fights and some groups that would never be friends with "others". But, our downtown area was the poorest section of the city, and my friends & I would spend Saturday afternoons walking around there with no fear at all. If we spent all our money and had no bus fare, and couldn't get a mother to come get us, we even hiked on home from this area thru some crappy sections.

[packsaddle]

Moose, when school desegregation-thru-busing began in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg system I was a student. When, for the first time ever, black students were no longer passed by but instead picked up by buses going to my school, the tensions and conflicts were something you cannot imagine. And they were nothing compared to the political divide that resulted. I was one of those student bus drivers. I saw that and much more first hand.

That was the first time in my life that I saw armed citizens threatening the political process (not to mention their different-colored neighbors). Of course, back then the concept of an 'assault rifle' had not appeared on the street. Mostly it was revolvers and the occasional pump shotgun. Semi-automatic actions were rare and expensive luxuries.

Vol-scouter seems to have missed what I saw and perhaps it's because I was at one of the epicenters that I have the outlook that I have. But considering that a decade later I experienced a man in Vol-scouter's state proudly proclaim that "...that was the first time I killed me a ni****..." and went on to describe the crime: considering that, I suspect Vol-scouter's state did have some of the divisions I saw back then. Or else that farmer out in the plateau was merely a criminal who would have done what he did no matter what. I doubt it.

Incidentally, that was not the only time I heard such confessions in the South, there were other individuals as well. None of them showed any remorse whatsoever and only one of them (in the 1980's) expressed any caution for fear of being 'found out'.

 

Of course these were things I mostly observed in the 'adult' world: teachers, school administrators, parents, politicians. The students...we just had the usual fist fights and the occasional knife fight. Guns simply weren't that available, at least not pistols. I only knew a handful of adults who had a revolver at that time and I remember the 'reverence' given to one guy who had an 'automatic', a Luger from WWII. Most of the firearms I saw or heard about were hunting arms. Mostly .22 rifles, an occasional larger caliber, and plenty of shotguns. Back then, double-barrels were still popular. Pump actions were occasional. We heard about 'automatics'.

Like I said before, students settled differences using non-lethal means. I can't remember a single instance in which fights resulted in a death. The only deaths I remember back then were from automobile crashes (no seatbelts).

 

Anyway, while it is possible that you're correct about things being more divisive today (especially up where you are), I think you do not have the benefit of what I've seen back then, the worst of which I find it difficult to describe. The anger and hatred was, let us say, not merely expressed in words or by stupid people signing stupid petitions.

[vol_scouter]

Pack,

 

Yes, I did see some of the things that you mentioned though where I grew up was not an epicenter. My wife dealt with riots growing up including one that nearly cost two family members their lives. My high school was bussed my senior year. Though I stayed in my original high school, there were numerous fights and I was threatened with death at knife-point. As you said, there were not the shootings though I knew many high school classmates that had loaded guns in their cars (was not illegal in those days) that were never used.

The other part of the observation was that there were a few hotheads on both sides that exacerbated the situation. As noted before, people started buying small handguns and carrying them for protection especially if their daily business took them into neighborhoods that were considered potential powder kegs. Therein lies a difference between then and now. The folks arming themselves for the most part had some reasonable concern that they might be in harm's way. However, now I am seeing housewives in affluent suburban neighborhoods arming themselves because they are afraid of their government. Whether that concern has merit or not is a subject for another discussion. It does show fear and suspicion that cannot be healthy.

When one looks at the political rhetoric, there are angry, hateful things said on both sides. Michelle Malkin shared a week's worth of her email once and it was disgusting to see the vile, hateful, and very violent threats leveled at her. No doubt that liberals experience similar things. It goes far beyond the implications that you are dim witted if you do not agree with my opinion that has and will always mark political discourse.

So I agree with Moose because the hate and anger between the left and the right is at a high from my standpoint and there is real fear in many citizens for their government. Couple this with the class envy that Obama used quite effectively to help to get re-elected leads to a dangerously divided public. Hopefully, Obama will try to heal those scars in the next four years. Let us all pray for our country and re-discover our commonalities rather than focus on our differences.

[moosetracker]

Oh, I think your right. The anger and fighting was more direct contact back then. Deaths more often, especially deaths of blacks when the law didn't bother to even look for the murder(s). But, I think it was more "mob" anger, and not organized enough to try to secede from the union, but trying to keep "change" from happening.

 

All the mass murders of today are of angry or disturbed people. Unless I missed a few, I haven't heard any of these recent mass murders or sniper shootings are from people trying to argue a political viewpoint, but more of the person having their own personal demands. There are other small side murders of homosexuals that could be argued to be that, but they are usually done in normal crimial fashion where the murderer is not grandstanding or loudly taking credit for the crime.

 

Still there is a deep political divide these days, that I would say is deeper then the time of the 60's because it is more organized. Unfortunately as in the time of the civil war and the 1960's, I still feel it has to do with black against white. With us having a black president. No proof. Just a gut feeling that the friction is higher because of it. If Hillary Clinton had won the primary and the election in 2008 and had pushed through the health care bill she was campaigning on (which ended up being the one more like what Obama passed rather then the one he promoted). And had it been her as President that got the huge deficit due to the Bush Tax cuts & Bush Wars. Well I am sure the Republicans would still put the blame on the Democrats, but it wouldn't be so polarized.. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps the female element would have caused the same divide, but I don't think so. I also doubt that the increase in threats against the President wouldn't have escalated to the need for the increased protection we have around Obama, had it been Hillary, even if she had very similar veiwpoints.

[vol_scouter]

Moose,

 

I know that is very difficult for the left to comprehend but people do not agree with the viewpoint of the left. Obama is the spokesperson and president for that viewpoint. This is not racial but ideological in nature. If Hilliary were to be the president pushing the same agenda, the reaction would be the same with a single caveat. That caveat is that it is maddening and dangerous that the left wishes to write off serious disagreement with policies as merely racism. Having an idea dismissed because if a false cry of racism discredits people and exacerbates the situation. Believe it or not, well educated and informed folks disagree with the left. Dismissing their concerns for any reason is not wise but especially unwise on the false accusation of racism.

[moosetracker]

You may talk for YOU and your opinion. You do not talk for everyone against Obama. The birtherism, muslim, "not one of us", "Lazy" all bells and whistle against "race" because they know that can't come out and say the "N" word. It does not stop alot of people who are not in the political office from using the "N" word in comments they make on the internet.

 

The death threats increased on him more then any other president before he every took the oath of office. Before he even started policy changes. Again many of these threats will also use the "N" word.

 

Just as I can not say all Northerners are free of bigotry, you can not say that all Republican anamosity toward the president is free of bigotry, that absolutely none of the anger over his veiwpoints are by non-bigotted people who soully object to his policy and would to the same level his soul was not enshrined in a white middle-to-old man body.

[vol_scouter]

Moose,

 

Never said that all. There is just as much if not more bigotry in democrats and liberals as there is in their counterpoints. To discount the legitimate disagreement with Obama's policies by calling it racism is simply intellectually vacuous.

[moosetracker]

I didn't say that it was all race either, I said the disagreement of the two parties are accentuated due to his race. That the disagreements would be there as they have always been for decades, but it is accentuated due to the race card.

 

Some people just believe the muslim, birther garbage that have floated around the internet for the past 4 years, without realizing it was basically a twist to black prejudice. They are against him for this with no knowledge it is totally bunk and hogwash, but if someone had hit them with a similar negative smear campaign truthfully stating his disqualifying trait is the color of his skin, they would have been able to discredit it for the garbage it was.

 

But, I have no illusion that had our president been Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden and she passed her health care plan and was faced with a deficit due to 2 wars on a credit card there still would be issues about how to fix the problem between the two parties.. Just I don't think it would be as intense.

 

By the way, Biden I think just won a notch toward our next potential President in 2016 with these fiscal negotiations, especially if Hillary doesn't run. The guy did good negotiating with McConnel then getting the vote in the Senate for it. So, even if the House kills it, it is a nice feather in his cap.

[packsaddle]

I guess my view of the political division could be biased by the fact that this region is so totally dominated by Tea Party Republicans. There just isn't enough of an opposition to present the appearance of division.

[vol_scouter]

Moose,

 

We will have to disagree on this point. I believe that the left is using race to denigrate those who legitimately disagree with Obama's policies. There are bigots on both sides. Because I am from the south with a southern accent, I have been told that i was a racist by 'tolerant' liberals who only knew that I was from the south. Bigotry and prejudice are present on both sides. There are some who dislike Obama for bigoted reasons but everyone that I personally know could care less about his race but see his rhetoric as extreme and react to that.

[moosetracker]

True it is not where you live or your accent. It is your deeds that call you out. Republicans had enough deeds that were racist. The biggest one of the bunch was one of their surrogates a former Governor from NH John Sununu.. He had the biggest, foulest mouth of them all and I was always embarrassed that they labeled him a former Governor of ours, rather than a post he had in the Bush WH (chief of staff) which he lost due to spending the taxpayer money on personal family vacations.

 

Not Southern, no Southern accent, but defiantly put out there by the Romney campaign to spew alot of racist comments.

 

Then theres the head of the GOP party for the state of Maine who stated :

In some parts of rural Maine, there were dozens, dozens of black people who came in and voted on Election Day, he said. Everybody has a right to vote, but nobody in (these) towns knows anyone whos black. How did that happen? I dont know. Were going to find out.

 

And the very scary black Panther sighting was in Philadelphia PA.. Really, who said they have the right to vote?

 

Voter suppression was also not only in the Southern states, they were in the swing states many of which weren't southern. Although this wasn't totally aimed at blacks, but really the poor it is just that many blacks are caught in that net.

[Brewmeister]

Well, since this thread has completely derailed...

 

Yeah, we are so racist in this country that we elected a black president.

 

Twice.

 

Charges of racism are used more and more by the race-obsessed simply to discredit positions and ideas they don't agree with and, quite often, their charges demonstrate the textbook definition of psychological projection...

[Beavah]

The south had court ordered busing that is still present today in some locales. However, after busing Boston was a blood bath (as had happened in some places in the south), no more northern cities were bused.

 

Yah, this is perhaps da problem I think some of us northerners have, eh?

 

Yeh get this sort of made-up, revisionist nonsense to cover for what was in fact genuine, institutionalized regional racism.

 

Detroit was bused. Cleveland was bused. Chicago was bused. There are still Voting Rights Act jurisdictions in da northern states. The laws have in fact been enforced uniformly, as much as was possible given that racist thoughts and speech are protected, and when not institutionalized racism is harder to address. Da notion that the laws were not and are not enforced uniformly is just bunk. Da issue is that da South had more severely entrenched and insitutionalized racism, and as a result still has more latent racism.

 

Yah, yah, we get that people look to justify racism on all kinds of other grounds these days. Like da birther nonsense. But it is what it is.

 

While da level of animosity about da President is undoubtedly driven by racism in some quarters, I think da real issue that's driving things is da urban/rural divide. Racism is just a subtext because rural America is still largely white.

 

Da real issue is that rural America is dying. Even in rural states like Nebraska da majority of state representatives now represent urban areas (Omaha and Lincoln). Mechanized farming and manufacturing, growth of global trade, move of educated kids to the cities for better opportunities... all that stuff has been goin' on for years but accelerated in da last decade. We're an urban country, but one that gives disproportionate representation in da legislature to rural folks who are feelin' threatened. They believe that the "government" is the problem, even though they are net recipients of government funding. They worry about needin' to defend themselves against riots or other boogeymen, even though da U.S. is safer than it's been in da last 50 years.

 

The reality is that capitalism is the problem, eh? Da modern industrial and information economy is not kind to smaller, isolated communities. Kids are movin' away, and immigrants and other folks aren't movin' in. Businesses are better sited elsewhere. And like all folks whose way of life is threatened, apocalyptic ideas and other nonsense starts croppin' up. So we see religious apocalyptic, we see folks imagining government meltdown of various types, all kinds of things. Mostly it's harmless, but it can cause some significant harm in local areas.

 

What it can't do is stop da trend or change da outcome. So to the extent da Republicans hitch their wagon to this group as they have been, they are doomed as a political party.

 

Beavah

 

[vol_scouter]

Moose,

 

Agree with it is actions that we should judge folks by. So historically, it was the democrat party that suppressed the African-American vote in the south. I note that NH according to the US census bureau, has a population that is 94.6% white and 1.3% black (the census bureau's designation - not mine). So if you were an observer at the polls or had observers at several polls that were reporting a large percentage (say 15%) of voters in a precinct known to have the average make up of NH, then one would have to question the legitimacy of the vote. Clearly, you do not see that as the case but with only one voter out of one hundred expected to be black, it is easy to see where such a concern would be raised.

Across the country, many people have petitioned their governments to ensure that only duly registered voters be allowed to vote. All Americans should want only US citizens to vote and to vote only a single time. The democrat party has fought all efforts to ensure against voter fraud. They did not try to modify the legislation to address some of their concerns but support preventing voter fraud. At least in the south where the democrat party has been found to be involved in voter fraud before, one is led to the conclusion that the democrat party believes that voter fraud is in the best interest of the democrat party.

Both parties are guilty of not doing what is right and in the best interest of the American people but doing what is best to keep them elected. That is sad. Perhaps in your area, voter suppression is an issue but in my area it is voter fraud.

People that are well educated (physicians, attorneys, PhD research scientists) are concerned with the direction that Obama is taking the country. These folks include African-Americans. They are not prejudiced but do not like the direction of the country.