KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/21/86)
From: Charles <MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
... well, there isn't much to be said about that, except to say
that its in fact the PEOPLE who work in TV who might seem to have
a liberal bias -
No, I meant that the medium itself often tends to have a liberal
bias, by its very nature. It is much easier to show on TV things that
liberals decry than it is to show on TV things that conservatives and
libertarians decry.
one also hears this same complaint about print.
Not that I have noticed. There is enormous diversity in the print
media. There is very little diversity amongst radio and TV stations.
Consider the difference between _The Nation_ and _Reason_. There is
no difference remotely that great between any two TV stations that I
know of.
Perhaps gun use should be taught in high school?
Perhaps; but what about all those adults who are all ready out of
high school - its they who will have the guns!
What can I say? We have managed just fine with an armed citizenry
for over two centuries. I don't think civilization will collapse if
draconian gun control laws are not quickly passed.
Shotguns don't do well against a B-52 strike
(i.e. our government will always have bigger
guns).
Tell that to the Vietnamese.
... well, there's over a million of them I can't tell that to,
they're dead.
They won. Had they not been armed, they would have lost.
In the event of a real civil uprising in
the United States, unless the entire population were to rise up
(which is doubtful) a million casualties should be quite enough to
end it.
The idea is not to foment a revolution, but to protect the people,
as individuals, against all levels of aggression, from robbers to
terrorists to revolutionaries to foreign invaders. The weapons are
primarily a deterrent, of course. Millions of people being armed
should be a powerful force to prevent any unpopular small movement
from turning to violence to achieve its ends. And should put a quick
stop to any such movement that IS foolish enough to declare war on the
populace.
...Keith
[ Well, I have noticed that people think print is biased, I've seen
the letters. I guess you don't read the same newspapers I do. As to
an 'inherent' liberalness of TV, I don't buy it. Its still people who
decide what goes on and what doesn't. You really think CBS would be
the same if Ted Turner were in charge? Jerry Falwell? Jimmy
Swaggart? While you're at it, consider the difference between "60
Minutes" and "Firing Line". If you're going to argue audience size,
go back and look at how many people read "Reason".
The original point was that giving guns to everyone would be
dangerous for a lot of reasons - one of which is that most people
don't know how or when to use them. We don't have an "armed
citizenry", now - you were saying we need looser (or no) gun laws to
move back to that. You argument doesn't really bear on that. (Sorry,
I won't be digressed further! :-)
Lastly, I don't buy at all your trying to use Vietnam to prove your
point. Go back and look at the Philippine uprising of the early
1900's - against the US. Conditions were surprisingly similar, but we
won that one. Know how? We didn't pull any punches. There are a lot
incredibly complex of reasons we lost in Vietnam. That the Cong and
the NVA had guns was the reason there was a war at all, not the reason
we lost. In general, guns in the hands of the people will not deter a
government - look at the steps Lincoln took at the opening of the
Civil War with northerners (and later, too). Dozens of governments
are currently fighting wars with internal dissenters. Does the fact
that the anti-government forces have guns stop the governments? Don't
be silly. A government will use any measures at hand if pressed
enough. - CWM]
-------