Note that Obama places resisting violence on the same level as violence. <<
That's certainly not my interpretation. Obama quoting Kennedy:'"Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily - whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence -...."
It's life taken UNNECESSARILY whether in an attack of violence or in response to that attack that Kennedy condemns. My guess is that he was referring to the killing by police of blacks who rioted after King's assassination. I can tell you there were many police killings in Memphis that were wanton police violence.
Is the violence a policeman uses to apprehend a criminal wrong?<<
It depends on the circumstances, obviously.
Is the violence a mother uses to fend off a wild animal attacking her baby wrong?<<
Who among us doesn't believe that human life is of a higher order than "animal" life?
And if someone in that fatal "gun free zone" of Virginian Tech had exerted violence and stopped Cho, would that have been wrong?<<
It would depend on the circumstances, obviously. But as a general principle, who among us would argue that we don't have the right to self-defense?
As has been explained, Federal Laws are in place that would have prevented Cho from acquiring a weapon -- had the law been complied with.<<
That's precisely the problem with gun control in this country, Lawrence. There are more loopholes than restrictions, more acknowledgement in the breech than in compliance. I can buy any kind of gun I want without any background check from a private individual, or I can steal it. I can buy any gun I want without any background check from any gun show. I can buy any gun I want without background checks from most pawn shops in Memphis. Gun control laws are a joke and everyone who wants a gun knows it. There's no gun control in the US.
A rule was in place declaring Virginia Tech a "Gun Free Zone."<<
Oh, my, and that didn't stop a sociopath? Well, let's throw out all the laws then.
It is illogical to use Cho as a springboard for new anti-gun legislation when existing legislation would have prevented Cho from getting the guns he purchased had it been complied with.<<
Well, I personally would outlaw all guns, period, melt them down, forbid their manufacture. But that's still a bit down the road. More anti-gun legislation might indeed be senseless unless there's the federal and state governments get serious about enforcement. They never have been.
Obama says, "we do accept violence, in various forms, all the time in our society. We glorify it, we encourage it, we ignore it, and it is heartbreaking and it has to stop." What does this mean? He hasn't defined what sort of violence he is talking about.<<
Certainly, he did. Read the transcript.
There are certain sorts of violence which are commendable. He doesn't distinguish between using violence to resist an attacker and the violence of the attacker.<<
Yes, I used to have these kinds of fantasies when I was about 12 or 13 -- I would fend off a gang of thugs and everyone thought I was so heroic. But I've put away the things of a child.
And who is this "we" that glorifies, encourages, ignores (to glorify and encourage while at the same time ignoring violence seems rather difficult) violence,
You and me and baby makes 3. >>and what sort of violence is being encouraged, glorified and ignored? << It really, really might help if you would read the damn transcript.
When we watch movies, do "we" still root for the good guy to be victorious over the bad guy, even if he has to use violence to do it? I hope so.<<
I hope we've grown more sophisticated than to believe that the world can be divided into good guys and bad guys. I mean, really, where would you place George Bush on such a spectrum? Depends, doesn't it? On what specifically he's to be judged on.
He apparently doesn't like the idea of resisting the bad guy. His solution for making the bad guy give up his violence? He says,"it is heartbreaking and it has to stop." Gosh, Obama. I don't think that's going to work.<<
Gosh, Lawrence, I don't think you've thought very deeply about this. >>Making laws against "We" to prevent "Cho" is illogical.<<Making and enforcing laws that prevent mentally unbalanced people from acquiring guns is not illogical. It might be something you disagree with, but it's not illogical. Your argument doesn't even qualify as an argument to be judged logical or not.
Also, piously declaring "it has to stop" is an impossibility. How do you get madness to stop? How do you get psychoses to stop? He doesn't propose more money for mental health studies. Why not? Wouldn't that make, or at least try to make "it stop"?<<
The madness Obama is talking about is the cultural madness, not the specific madness of men like Cho. You can get social madness to stop, but it's a long term process and it starts when you recognize that there's a problem -- a social sickness.
And then he includes some more of his party platform under the rubric 'violence': The violence of Capitalism that starts & stops & moves about businesses violently disrupts lives. Also, it violently doesn't have a high enough minimum wage. Good grief!<<
Obviously you don't even recognize the problem yet. But I still have faith in you, Lawrence.
If he were to declare that he opposes the violent defense of our nation, he would give his opponent, whoever he or she might be, the most lopsided win in a presidential election ever.<<
I've never know anyone so enthralled with violence, Lawrence. Do the authorities know about this? Better hide your guns.
Mike Geary Memphis ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html