The Problems Of Rural Christian White Americans

[Loren Pechtel]

But how would it work? Smarter people than me should be working on that... that, and my fucking jet pack that I was promised in 1980.

Your jet pack exists, although not commercially yet.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Increased interaction between North and South would do the trick.

Unification never seems to make it onto the menu.

Just to clarify, are you talking about Korea, the USA, or both?

Rev. Moon, of course.

 

[Malintent]

It wouldn't work even if it were technically possible.

Patriotic North Koreans would simply hand the devices in to the authorities.

From what I have come to believe about the people of NK is that the "patriotic ones" are just playing along so that they aren't killed.
There is a huge "problem" in NK with imports of western movies and music. People are getting in quite a bit of trouble, and their whole families, for viewing movies. It is a risk NK people are taking.

Sure, some people will hand in the phones they find out of fear of being put into a death camp... and others will hide the phones like precious jewels and access as much content as they can... and tell their friends all about what they learn about the "real world".

They share two boarders with countries that are not trying to hide the rest of the world from it's people. It's impossible that information sourced from people the SKs find reliable isn't leaking into the country.

I'm suggesting we facilitate a mass dumping of knowledge on them... with emphasis on life in China and South Korea... something they can relate to closely.. and see for themselves more easily... they also have not been trained to distrust or hate China. The free trade they have is something the NKs would be highly interested in, I am sure.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But how would it work? Smarter people than me should be working on that... that, and my fucking jet pack that I was promised in 1980.

Your jet pack exists, although not commercially yet.

The problem with jet packs isn't as much the technology as it is the logistics and administration. Imagine the personal injury cases. Imagine the traffic control. Having to file a flight plan before use?

 

[Malintent]

The vast majority of air traffic is uncontrolled... it is one of the first things a student pilot learns about flight they probably didn't know.
filing a flight plan is only a requirement if you are operating a commercial aircraft for hire, or wish to fly under "Instrument flight rules" (IFR) for constant radar contact and ATC communication and control, allowing flight through clouds where aircraft cannot "see and avoid" each other. "Visual Flight Rules" are the default. "See and avoid" is the basic principle... no different than road traffic (there are rules designed to allow safe flow of cars - red light means stop, and you are expected to not crash into another car because you can see them and following the rules keeps the cars "separated".)

When multiple uncontrolled aircraft all want to land at the same place at the same time, there are rules dictating how the aircraft line up, who has priority, and how to follow each other in for a safe landing. This is done through announcement of your position and intention over a public radio frequency that is associated with that particular area. The pilots work out how to align themselves for a safe landing based on the rules and where everyone is at any point in time.

All that said, the slow but steady adoption of automated vehicles is going inevitably result in some sort of automated traffic control... we are heading in the direction of controlling street traffic similarly to how air traffic is presently controlled, in my opinion.

Edited to add: I am a pilot, btw.

 

[Opoponax]

Beware that California's rules will in time ban the purchase of all handguns. They aren't updating their list of approved guns and old ones are aging off--in time the list will be empty.

Just last night I bought a new 1911 in 45 ACP that will be delivered to me here on California's beautiful central coast in about 4 days. But yeah, the roster's shrinking.

California is more restrictive than most, and that's fine with me. Some of the laws are stupid and they are designed to harass gun owners. For example, the ban on the delivery of ammunition direct to your house is likely violative of the Commerce Clause. I don't think it'll stand though. At some point within the next couple of years it'll get struck down.

But California is trying to do something, anything, to curb gun violence. And our legislature can have a clear conscience when it comes to things like mass killings, because if it had it's way, such things would be impossible here.

I'm a bad gun owner though, according to other gun owners on the interwebs because I would give up certain guns if it would help prevent things like Columbine, Sandy Hook, the Texas Church Shooting, and this latest massacre in Florida (and on and on). I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Yeah--it's bozos like this that are the primary reason I want a gun license system. Model it on driver's licenses--no crap about need, just show that you know your shit and it's issued. Special cases are just modifications on the license. (NFA weapons would simply be a license endorsement. You undergo the background check once, you get your endorsement, then you can buy NFA weapons pretty much as you would buy any others.)

Right? You would think that even gun owners would be for that because it's some kind of assurance that the person who's sitting on the next bench over from you at the range knows how to properly handle a firearm. But they won't hear of it.

When I've proposed a licensing system, I got several responses saying this: "So should I need a license to practice free speech too?!"

So there's the mentality.

 

[Malintent]

I too am a gun owner... I have 5. I rather enjoy trap shooting... not a hunter, but not against it... I love eating meat, and don't give more of a shit about an animal that has a cute face than one that doesn't.

I am all for a simple licensing system... one that can be revoked in the same way a drivers license can be... based on violation or medical condition. I also hold the opinion that it is NOT a constitutional right, but a state granted right that is subject to the will of voters, not written in stone as a basic right.

When I've proposed a licensing system, I got several responses saying this: "So should I need a license to practice free speech too?!"

My first response would be, "No. Why do you ask?" and go from there.

My more facetious response would be "Can you instantly kill a person on the spot with one misspoken word? If so, I will have to cut your tongue out of your head now, to protect those around you in case you may talk in your sleep or accidently slur a word just the wrong way... for your own protection, and the protection of your family, of course".

Further, if the analogy wasn't stupidly ridiculous, but was in fact equivalent, then apply all current reasonable regulations on guns, to your face.

When drunk, you may not speak, else you are being criminally reckless.
When you are not actively speaking, you must keep your tongue in a separate locked box
You may not brandish your words in public
speaking to a minor is illegal

silly analogy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But how would it work? Smarter people than me should be working on that... that, and my fucking jet pack that I was promised in 1980.

Your jet pack exists, although not commercially yet.

The problem with jet packs isn't as much the technology as it is the logistics and administration. Imagine the personal injury cases. Imagine the traffic control. Having to file a flight plan before use?

Yeah, they take a lot more skill to fly than it takes to drive an automobile.

The flight plans could be avoided--designate acceptable flyways with directions. (Take the existing city streets, make the airspace above them one-way.)

Also, there's the issue that they are jets--you need to be very careful about what's behind your exhaust.

I can't see them being safe in the numbers that would exist in urban areas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But California is trying to do something, anything, to curb gun violence. And our legislature can have a clear conscience when it comes to things like mass killings, because if it had it's way, such things would be impossible here.

And here's where we disagree. An effort to do something, anything about a problem is almost always a bad thing. Figure out what you think will work, don't flail around!

Yeah--it's bozos like this that are the primary reason I want a gun license system. Model it on driver's licenses--no crap about need, just show that you know your shit and it's issued. Special cases are just modifications on the license. (NFA weapons would simply be a license endorsement. You undergo the background check once, you get your endorsement, then you can buy NFA weapons pretty much as you would buy any others.)

Right? You would think that even gun owners would be for that because it's some kind of assurance that the person who's sitting on the next bench over from you at the range knows how to properly handle a firearm. But they won't hear of it.

When I've proposed a licensing system, I got several responses saying this: "So should I need a license to practice free speech too?!"

So there's the mentality.

The problem is that licenses have often been used as a means of denial rather than as a means of ensuring education. While I favor a license based approach I think it unlikely that a good system will be created. It's like with the background checks--I'm not opposed to the idea (other than I think it should be done as a license rather than at the point of sale) but that I'm opposed to the implementations that are actually put forth.

The left mostly approaches it from a standpoint of what can they do to cut the number of guns with no regard for whether those measures will actually be more likely to disarm the bad guys than the law abiding. Virtually everything that gets trotted out would do nothing about the shooting it was in response to. (The right isn't immune to this, they just do it in different ways. Observe the Patriot act--a law enforcement wish list that had nothing to do with terrorism.)

 

[Juma]

And here's where we disagree. An effort to do something, anything about a problem is almost always a bad thing. Figure out what you think will work, don't flail around!

Right? You would think that even gun owners would be for that because it's some kind of assurance that the person who's sitting on the next bench over from you at the range knows how to properly handle a firearm. But they won't hear of it.

When I've proposed a licensing system, I got several responses saying this: "So should I need a license to practice free speech too?!"

So there's the mentality.

The problem is that licenses have often been used as a means of denial rather than as a means of ensuring education. While I favor a license based approach I think it unlikely that a good system will be created. It's like with the background checks--I'm not opposed to the idea (other than I think it should be done as a license rather than at the point of sale) but that I'm opposed to the implementations that are actually put forth.

The left mostly approaches it from a standpoint of what can they do to cut the number of guns with no regard for whether those measures will actually be more likely to disarm the bad guys than the law abiding. Virtually everything that gets trotted out would do nothing about the shooting it was in response to. (The right isn't immune to this, they just do it in different ways. Observe the Patriot act--a law enforcement wish list that had nothing to do with terrorism.)

So a system must be pefect to be shipped? Then nothing would be done, ever.

It isnt weapons per se that is the problem. It’s the fear that makes people have guns.
The general fear of being robbed.
The fear that other people have guns.
So if people wasnt afraid there would be a need for guns (dxcept for hunters and hobbyists)
Education about guns wont help.
Makepeople trust each other (even when it really isnt based on reality) would help tremendously.

That is what is good with ”turn your other cheek” of christianity. It is a downward spiral to stop fear.
It will sacrifice individual for the sake of the common good, but is still the only way out.
(Rest of christianity is pure crap, gods and shit)

 

[TV and credit cards]

Licensing is fine but there needs to be in place appropriate punishment for safety violations just as there are for operating a vehicle on the road. Consider the traffic laws in place, and this for vehicles that are continuously made safer every year. So, what are appropriate punishments for operating a device in an unsafe manner that has but one mechanical safety feature? A device who's primary purpose is to kill another human being? This is the common sense of it. Start with the device's purpose and potential for harm and set the required education level for licensing appropriately. Then have laws in place commensurate with the level of responsibility required by the owner.
Think about the education needed to obtain a driver's license and how people actually drive. Think about all the safety features vehicles have to protect people. It seems to me if we are hellbent on being a nation foolish enough to let people own guns for no particular reason, we could at least have a set of laws that insist on their safe handling and operation. Guns don't have airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones, or automatic projectile braking. They are by and large dependent upon the owner to act responsibly. Most of which have no valid reason to own a gun in the first place.

 

[couch_sloth]

Beware that California's rules will in time ban the purchase of all handguns. They aren't updating their list of approved guns and old ones are aging off--in time the list will be empty.

Just last night I bought a new 1911 in 45 ACP that will be delivered to me here on California's beautiful central coast in about 4 days. But yeah, the roster's shrinking.

California is more restrictive than most, and that's fine with me. Some of the laws are stupid and they are designed to harass gun owners. For example, the ban on the delivery of ammunition direct to your house is likely violative of the Commerce Clause. I don't think it'll stand though. At some point within the next couple of years it'll get struck down.

But California is trying to do something, anything, to curb gun violence. And our legislature can have a clear conscience when it comes to things like mass killings, because if it had it's way, such things would be impossible here.

I'm a bad gun owner though, according to other gun owners on the interwebs because I would give up certain guns if it would help prevent things like Columbine, Sandy Hook, the Texas Church Shooting, and this latest massacre in Florida (and on and on). I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Yeah--it's bozos like this that are the primary reason I want a gun license system. Model it on driver's licenses--no crap about need, just show that you know your shit and it's issued. Special cases are just modifications on the license. (NFA weapons would simply be a license endorsement. You undergo the background check once, you get your endorsement, then you can buy NFA weapons pretty much as you would buy any others.)

Right? You would think that even gun owners would be for that because it's some kind of assurance that the person who's sitting on the next bench over from you at the range knows how to properly handle a firearm. But they won't hear of it.

When I've proposed a licensing system, I got several responses saying this: "So should I need a license to practice free speech too?!"

So there's the mentality.

I think the big thing California has done (or is doing) is make it illegal to own high capacity magazines. I think 10 rounds is the limit; and that’s plenty if you’re worried about burglars, home invasions, etc

 

[jonatha]

I think the big thing California has done (or is doing) is make it illegal to own high capacity magazines. I think 10 rounds is the limit; and that’s plenty if you’re worried about burglars, home invasions, etc

You obviously haven't heard of the massive increase in California of 11-member burglary gangs

 

[Toni]

My only use of that phrase was a paraphrasing of Jason Harvestdancer's prior use of the same phrase. I in no way rely on, nor do I even care much for, that stereotype

I don't care what Jason Harvestdancer wrote. You repeated the phrase, not in any way that challenged his assumption that this was a common view --or your view of rural America. You certainly seem to believe it is true.

You seem to not even consider that there is any valid point of view to be found in rural America or in the American south.

Not one single thing I have said claims or even implies that.

Oh, I disagree. Almost any post you make about American politics or society drips with contempt and presumes a tremendous amount of ignorance and barbarity on the part of Americans. Usually ends with a declaration that you will never visit here.

In fact, the United States has always walked a fine line between states rights and federal rights, between individual rights and responsibilities and those of the government.

I am aware of this. None of it is relevant to anything I have posted in this thread.

On the contrary: it is the central issue to understanding the urban vs rural, north vs south divides within the United States.

The North won the Civil War and as always, the winners write the narrative. Part of that narrative relies on viewing the South as a bunch of ignorant, inbred racists. Certainly there are plenty of ignorant and racist Southerners. It is false and ignorant to believe that ignorance and racism is more prevalent in the South than in the North or for that matter, on one side of the pond than the other.

People are people are people are people.

Start by dropping the condescension, and reading my posts.

Your posts reek of condescension. And ignorance as your 'knowledge' seems to come mostly from online news sources which are limited. And almost certainly are based in large northern urban metropolises. There is bias in all journalism, even the very best. It's important to keep that in mind.

If you think I view the world through a 'Rupert Murdoch filter', or even that I have any time for any of his shithouse media outlets, then it is VERY clear that you haven't been paying any attention to my posts either in this thread, or elsewhere on this board.

Sure.

Look, I read foreign press as well as US Press. I know very well what kinds of American news stories make it to foreign press.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So a system must be pefect to be shipped? Then nothing would be done, ever.

Of course not. It just must be better than the status quo. Do something, anything usually ends up with feel-good measures that do not improve the situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the big thing California has done (or is doing) is make it illegal to own high capacity magazines. I think 10 rounds is the limit; and that’s plenty if you’re worried about burglars, home invasions, etc

Realistically, it makes little difference.

When you look over all the mass shootings there is exactly one case of an intervention while someone was reloading a semi-auto weapon (although in the big picture it didn't matter as the magazine was damaged and wouldn't have fired anyway) and didn't have another weapon at hand. (If the shooter has two or more guns they aren't disarmed while reloading, it doesn't provide an opening to jump them.)

On the other hand, long ago in one of these debates I ran into a guy who actually needed more than 10 rounds. The problem was a dog pack, not humans.

 

[Toni]

I think the big thing California has done (or is doing) is make it illegal to own high capacity magazines. I think 10 rounds is the limit; and that’s plenty if you’re worried about burglars, home invasions, etc

Realistically, it makes little difference.

When you look over all the mass shootings there is exactly one case of an intervention while someone was reloading a semi-auto weapon (although in the big picture it didn't matter as the magazine was damaged and wouldn't have fired anyway) and didn't have another weapon at hand. (If the shooter has two or more guns they aren't disarmed while reloading, it doesn't provide an opening to jump them.)

On the other hand, long ago in one of these debates I ran into a guy who actually needed more than 10 rounds. The problem was a dog pack, not humans.

https://thinkprogress.org/seattle-s...-a-limited-amount-of-ammunition-e647ee2ce0c2/

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/changing-clips-sometimes-takes-more

Realistically, the lives of eleven children matter.

Realistically, mental illness is a world wide problem but mass shootings are relatively rare anywhere else in the world.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Just last night I bought a new 1911 in 45 ACP that will be delivered to me here on California's beautiful central coast in about 4 days. But yeah, the roster's shrinking.

California is more restrictive than most, and that's fine with me. Some of the laws are stupid and they are designed to harass gun owners. For example, the ban on the delivery of ammunition direct to your house is likely violative of the Commerce Clause. I don't think it'll stand though. At some point within the next couple of years it'll get struck down.

But California is trying to do something, anything, to curb gun violence. And our legislature can have a clear conscience when it comes to things like mass killings, because if it had it's way, such things would be impossible here.

I'm a bad gun owner though, according to other gun owners on the interwebs because I would give up certain guns if it would help prevent things like Columbine, Sandy Hook, the Texas Church Shooting, and this latest massacre in Florida (and on and on). I'd do it in a heartbeat.



Right? You would think that even gun owners would be for that because it's some kind of assurance that the person who's sitting on the next bench over from you at the range knows how to properly handle a firearm. But they won't hear of it.

When I've proposed a licensing system, I got several responses saying this: "So should I need a license to practice free speech too?!"

So there's the mentality.

I think the big thing California has done (or is doing) is make it illegal to own high capacity magazines. I think 10 rounds is the limit; and that’s plenty if you’re worried about burglars, home invasions, etc

California had actually outlawed certain AR "type" assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Ths had limited effect though, because 1) Gun manufacturers would change their gun specs slightly and claim they weren't the same "style" as those outlawed, and that three bordering states had no such restrictions.

 

[Toni]

An insider explains how rural Christian white America has a dark and terrifying underbelly

"As the election of Donald Trump is being sorted out, a common theme keeps cropping up from all sides: “Democrats failed to understand white, working-class, fly-over America.”

Trump supporters are saying this. Progressive pundits are saying this. Talking heads across all forms of the media are saying this. Even some Democratic leaders are saying this. It doesn’t matter how many people say it, it is complete BS. It is an intellectual/linguistic sleight of hand meant to draw attention away from the real problem. The real problem isn’t East Coast elites who don’t understand or care about rural America. The real problem is that rural Americans don’t understand the causes of their own situations and fears and they have shown no interest in finding out. They don’t want to know why they feel the way they do or why they are struggling because they don’t want to admit it is in large part because of the choices they’ve made and the horrible things they’ve allowed themselves to believe."

It is a problem.

I live in a fairly rural are of the Great MidWest. I grew up in a different rural part of the Great Midwest, but I lived for a number of years in Big City East Coast and then in Big Midwestern City for a bunch more.

YES city folk DO look down on small town, rural areas when they aren't busy ignoring them or thinking: why don't you just move to the city like real people.

It's an issue. It's a BIG issue.

I don't remember where you are living or where you have lived.

Rural/small town/midwestern flyover country DOES understand it's problems and it's not a lack of Starbucks.

Rural areas and small towns deal with poverty, lack of infrastructure, being passed over for improvements to infrastructure in favor of big city projects, lack of employment opportunities, needing to spend an inordinate amount of school budgets on transportation, loss of access to good health care and a lot more but still get to deal with all the problems associated with drugs (including gangs, btw), illegal firearms, pollution, and yes, immigrants who are re-settling in the area but the areas don't have sufficient resources to support the families in need who have lived there for a generation or three and aren't equipped (without resources) to provide a good welcoming spot to refugees and immigrants whose lack of English skills adds a not -insignificant burden on the strapped for cash school systems and can cause some real cultural clashes. But darn it, we do try mighty hard. Often through churches and local community groups--which means: we pay for it ourselves.

We send our kids off to college, knowing they probably won't come back because the jobs are not here. Neither are doctors, hospitals or educational opportunities. Or respect.

What a gigantic pile of horseshit. Rural white america hates niggers, furriners and mooslims, evolution and higher education. So they like Trump. They like the Klan. That's it. Stop sanctifying their bigotry. And they do it all for Jesus too.

What a gigantic pile of bigotry and ignorant horseshit you spout.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbgOACJpZg0[/youtube]

Rural White Christian America