RE: The US and guns

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: The US and guns

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The US and guns

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The US and guns - 10/12/2006 7:25:51 PM

Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KatyLied

I don't understand the gun love. But to each his own. My dad collects guns, he doesn't hunt or shoot anything with them. I guess he likes the way they look, I don't know. Pennsylvania is considering handgun legislation that will allow only 12 handguns to be purchased per year (a maximum of one gun per month). I don't understand why anyone would need to buy one handgun per month.

Your flaw in logic applies to accepting legislation based upon "need".

What if PA considered legislation that curtailed sex toy purchases to 10 "marital aids" per year, or 18 alcoholic drinks per week (without special permit for social gatherings). You don't NEED the glass one, the jelly one, the bunny one, the double one, etc. Moreover, the 18 drinks allows for one alcoholic beverage per day with more than a six pack per weekend evening, or two drinks per day with four each weekend evening. It's certainly unreasonable to be drinking more than that anyway.

The point is that the government has NO right to regulate and interfere with certain aspects of our lives and lifestyles PARTICULARLY when there is a constitutional provision that bars infringement! So maybe you don't see the point that certain collectors might find the sale of a lifetime at an estate with the vintage revolvers but they already bought 6 that year, so 2 slip through their fingers, or perhaps somebody gets ZERO for 2 years and is now making good money offshore. When a limited pistol comes out some people buy more than one so they have a weapon they can fire and one or two they leave unfired as collectables. There are definitely good and sensible reasons why a person might suddenly want to buy a number of firearms, but that is beside the point. The government has no place acting as your parent dictating what is reasonable, and I suggest you wipe that reasonble line of thinking from your head, before it comes back and bites you on legislation that is totally unfair to you and your lifestyle and that other people "don't see a problem with" for no good reason other than a person doesn't need...

(in reply to KatyLied)

RE: The US and guns - 10/12/2006 7:32:16 PM

Posts: 13029
Joined: 2/24/2005
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline

Yes, I understand the sticking point is the fact that government is considering legislation that infringes on us. And I also understand that even if we find guns dangerous and of no use to us that we should be concerned about such legislation.

_____________________________

“If you want to live a happy life, tie it to a goal, not to people or things.”
- Albert Einstein

(in reply to Pulpsmack)

RE: The US and guns - 10/12/2006 7:51:09 PM

Posts: 251
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline

It isn't how many guns. Canada has more guns per capita ( not handguns though ) than the US.
Our gun death numbers are tiny by comparison. Handguns are too easy to use in the heat of the moment, too easy to conceal for criminal activity. A lot of people in the US who are not actually gun / shooting enthusiasts own handguns. That is a recipe for accident and heat of the moment tragedies. In Canada, it is far more likely for the owner of a gun to be one who uses it as a tool, or is an informed, trained enthusiast.

It hurts to say it. But to some extent it's true. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. BUT! The people are a product of the culture. The gun culture and the general culture it is in, is very different in Canada than the US. Of course being next door, things are evening out in the direction of the US. Guns are being perceived more as penis extentions by more dumb Canadians all the time.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

RE: The US and guns - 10/12/2006 10:27:48 PM

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

One can convert a shotgun to a handgun in less than five minutes.

There is no such thing as bad and good guns, they are all lethal.

There are a host of reasons Canada has lower crime rates, sane drug laws and universal health care are big ones.

(in reply to Kedicat)

RE: The US and guns - 10/12/2006 11:15:49 PM

Posts: 43
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline

The right to have arms is fine when your talking hunting rifles and things used for outdoor sports. The more military type weapons that didnt exsist when the founding fathers wrote up the Bill of Rights are the problem, I dont think they invisioned Ice Cube saying it was a good day because he didnt even have to use his AK.

The ease with which someone can get there hands on these types of weapons is one of the more serious issues dealing with guns in the US. Guerrilla comanders in Bosnia where sending people over to the US during the war there in the 90's to buy military grade weapons from private dealers here and ship them back to equip their fighters.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

RE: The US and guns - 10/12/2006 11:37:32 PM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dombill32

The ease with which someone can get there hands on these types of weapons is one of the more serious issues dealing with guns in the US. Guerrilla comanders in Bosnia where sending people over to the US during the war there in the 90's to buy military grade weapons from private dealers here and ship them back to equip their fighters.

Yep. People really need assault weapons to protect their home from burglars and stop themselves being mugged and raped. Ghengis Khan is obviously alive and well and living in the US.

The other nonsense put forward in supporting guns is the idea that people are protecting themselves from government abuse of power. What are they going to do, dig a trench around their house for when the marines attack? If revolution happens, the danger will more likely come from a fellow citizen you think is your friend than from a government, such is the nature of such things.

I think American gun culture is the reason for all the over reaction of American forces. The whole macho stance of wearing sunglasses and standing like John Wayne and an over reliance on hardwear rather than human contact that occupied people find so provocative.

(in reply to dombill32)

RE: The US and guns - 10/12/2006 11:49:26 PM

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

quote:

This probably gets to the crux of the difference. One of the things I have noticed while being on this board is the number of Americans who are suspicious about the notion of a central Government. It is unheard of in Britain. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, better or worse. Don't get me wrong, we don't agree with the policies of our Government but the idea of not having a central Government is completely alien to us. It is ingrained in our society. We simply what a change to the people who run the Government.

I am going to take this in for discussion in my cultural anthro class as it is classic.

Us crazy Americans like to think the government ultimately answers to us and not the other way around.

Lets not forget that England embraced gun control out of fear of revolution from within and thinks like the troubles just made it even more imperitive.

It's the same all over the world CD. You're no different in this regard. My point really was/is that we both value our civil rights but we think the best way to achieve those civil rights is by having the right central Government electd by us and answerable to us whereas there are a number of Americans on this board who are suspicious of having an elected, central body in their lives.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

RE: The US and guns - 10/12/2006 11:53:46 PM

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

You either missed (which I doubt) or ignored the actual question. The British governement sold gun control publicly as an anti-crime tool but internally it was understood that it was to disarm and make the public powerless.

I envy many things about Europe, the health care, the smaller scale of living, the urban planning that makes public transportation possible, the food in many placed other than England but I do not envy your civil rights.

As for Canada, I have been introgated for many many long hours by the RCMP who just love pointing out that in Canada, citizens have no rights so while I think the place lovely, I will stay on my side thank you very much.

CD, I could give you a list as long as my arm on the good and bad of England. What I'm struggling to understand is why you make the point you do not envy our civil rights. Based on this, I'm assuming you're making the point that the people of the US enjoy more civil rights. How have you arrived at this conclusion?

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 12:14:59 AM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

I envy many things about Europe, the health care, the smaller scale of living, the urban planning that makes public transportation possible, the food in many placed other than England but I do not envy your civil rights.

Based on this, I'm assuming you're making the point that the people of the US enjoy more civil rights. How have you arrived at this conclusion?

I will refrain from speaking for other Europeans on this board but when I have been to the US, authority in the way of flags and uniforms is more on display than in Europe. I travel frequently in Europe and go through borders every bit as easily as crossing state lines in the US (with the exception of Britain where immigration doesn't wear uniforms). There is obviously more belief and respect in the US in authority than there is here and less questioning of those in power. I have never seen the robust questioning of the President or any other American politician on American TV as I have seen European politicians questioned in the media. I have also never seen anything to suggest that Americans have more rights in America than Europeans have in Europe. Living in Holland I would suggest the Dutch have more rights and are freer than Americans, something an American friend that lives here agrees with.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 4:08:45 AM

Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: dombill32

The ease with which someone can get there hands on these types of weapons is one of the more serious issues dealing with guns in the US. Guerrilla comanders in Bosnia where sending people over to the US during the war there in the 90's to buy military grade weapons from private dealers here and ship them back to equip their fighters.

Yep. People really need assault weapons to protect their home from burglars and stop themselves being mugged and raped. Ghengis Khan is obviously alive and well and living in the US.

The other nonsense put forward in supporting guns is the idea that people are protecting themselves from government abuse of power. What are they going to do, dig a trench around their house for when the marines attack? If revolution happens, the danger will more likely come from a fellow citizen you think is your friend than from a government, such is the nature of such things.

I think American gun culture is the reason for all the over reaction of American forces. The whole macho stance of wearing sunglasses and standing like John Wayne and an over reliance on hardwear rather than human contact that occupied people find so provocative.

Glad to see the most obtuse posts of the thread were lumped together so they can be addressed simultaneously.

Dombill...

The warlords that chose US weapons did so for their superior characteristics, not because they were particularly easy to get. If you want easy, cheap, and reliable, you can get Warsaw Pact weapons (SKS and AK-47 rifles, Drugunov sniper rifles, as well as RPGs) for bottom-barrel prices. The point is that the United States congress may amend the constitution to drop the 2nd amendment and ban all manufacture and sales to anyone but US military and law enforcement, but that won't change much at all with respect to criminals accessing firearms. Our borders are so expansive we cannot hope to stem the tide of illegal drugs and immigrants which flow through the gaps. Once it becomes more profitable, what is going to stop boatloads of Norinco type 56 rifles (the Chinese AK-47) and other fully automatic or explosive devices? Moreover, many people familiar with firearms are capable of manufacturing them from their raw components. All that is needed is a machine shop for the most advanced weapons, and some designs only require hand tools and skill to work the raw material into a firearm. Finally, people can, will, and do steal them from the police and the military. Just this week a Ft Worth, TX cop had his squad car broken into while he stopped at his apartment. The thief stole a MP5 machine pistol (fully automatic) and 2 handguns. In short, there is no hope of disarming the criminals. While legislation may slightly hamper the criminal's ability to readily access firearms, it does so at a significant cost to the law abiding citizen, who is only interested in legal recreation or lawful defense of his/her person and loved ones.

Meatcleaver...

the more you post the more ludicrous you sound. Dismissing for the moment that "need" is not the point of discussion regarding our constitutionally protected rights in America, you have little idea about these hordes that you joke so glibly about. In 1991 Los Angeles broke out into riots when the white cops were acquitted of excessively beating black menace, Rodney King (who was high on PCP and fled from them on a highway at speeds topping 100 mph). Many buildings were vandalized, looted, and torched to the ground, but a few business owners manned their rooftops with AR-15 rifles and stood vigil against the rioting looters. Their establishments were among the few spared and left standing.

In the mid 1990s, two bank robbers sporting fully automatic AK-47s (illegal here) and type IV body armor took their loot and fought in the streets of Los Angeles who tried to intecept them. The pistol and shotgun rounds fired by the police did nothing to slow the armored menace as they unloaded a barrage of automatic fire upon the impotent police force. Finally some of officers got wise and entered a gun store and commandered some AR-15 assault rifles the store had (legally) for sale to the public. Those rifles, capable of breeching the armor turned the tide and put the robbers on the retreat, where they eventually met with their demise.

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the Louisiana and Mississippi coastline devestating the city of New Orleans. Pandemonium broke loose in the city with mass looting, rapes, and gunfire from scum, including acts so bold as to fire on police and rescue workers. That was the time that people in America had a legitimate need for such hardware, and lo and behold... one of the first illegal orders from the mayor's office in New Orleans was for law enforcement to find law abiding citizens who owned guns and disarm them. I was among those people in Louisiana when it happened. I lived downtown right near the evacuation hub for our city and while most of the the "displaced citizenry" were confused and scared, some were angry and vocal about it. It would not have taken much to tip my city into a full scale riot with tensions rising at the level they did. Some of the more vocal and angry ones started canvasing the neighborhoods and sizing things up. I happened to be returning home from a trip at the range and as I left the car and slung the rifle across my back in the driveway, I noticed these people immediately left my block. I didn't have any other tense situations during the chaos, but I was damn glad I had that equipment available to protect myself and my neighbors had the situation gotten out of hand like it did next door in New Orleans.

Your knowledge of such things in this country is far too lacking for you to make your smarmy, ill-informed calls from the sidelines. I also find it comical that you have a bit of a gun problem yourselves these days, despite your nation's brilliant legislation.

< Message edited by Pulpsmack -- 10/13/2006 4:28:37 AM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 4:16:27 AM

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

NG - please could you answer this question? I realise you are ignoring me because I'm not in your target respondent population, (or question is too difficult) but still;

why should I not be permitted to own a gun?
(and I mean a gun, not an airgun or shotgun with two round capacity only - I mean a handgun or something bigger with more than two round capacity)

Bearing in mind, where I live, I could get one illegally within 24 hours for about a hundred pounds for a handgun or five hundred for something bigger - I asked.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 5:02:59 AM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

Your knowledge of such things in this country is far too lacking for you to make your smarmy, ill-informed calls from the sidelines. I also find it comical that you have a bit of a gun problem yourselves these days, despite your nation's brilliant legislation.

You have just enlightened me as to why you need guns in the US. Apart from the picture you paint it of being like the lawless Congo outback, it has smarmy people like you who think violence solves violence. Probably why US policy is working so well in the ME.

Make that paranoid too.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 10/13/2006 5:06:35 AM >

(in reply to Pulpsmack)

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 5:22:22 AM

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

I envy many things about Europe, the health care, the smaller scale of living, the urban planning that makes public transportation possible, the food in many placed other than England but I do not envy your civil rights.

Based on this, I'm assuming you're making the point that the people of the US enjoy more civil rights. How have you arrived at this conclusion?

I will refrain from speaking for other Europeans on this board but when I have been to the US, authority in the way of flags and uniforms is more on display than in Europe. I travel frequently in Europe and go through borders every bit as easily as crossing state lines in the US (with the exception of Britain where immigration doesn't wear uniforms). There is obviously more belief and respect in the US in authority than there is here and less questioning of those in power. I have never seen the robust questioning of the President or any other American politician on American TV as I have seen European politicians questioned in the media. I have also never seen anything to suggest that Americans have more rights in America than Europeans have in Europe. Living in Holland I would suggest the Dutch have more rights and are freer than Americans, something an American friend that lives here agrees with.

If you look at the people on this board the few British, the few Canadians and the many Americans it is fairly obvious that the debate over civil liberties and the breadth of views are not confined to a culture/nationality. There is a cross section of views from all people on this board. Some genuinely value civil rights, some don't even understand the real meaning and importance of civil rights and what they're really talking about is a deep-rooted conservatism aimed at maintaining the staus quo, some aren't really that arsed about politics/Government, others actually like authority and can't see no fault in this Government or the concept of Government, others are plain anarchists who just don't want Government in any way, shape or form. I can't believe it's any different all over the world - a whole cross section of views and understanding of civil liberties/politics/the concept of Government.

I will throw this in to the mix though. An impression I get from this board is that Americans are less likely to take responsibility for their Government. They will argue that it is not their Government because they haven't voted for them. Whereas here, we know it is our Government - we may not have elected them but we live in a country/society that has put them in charge. They are our collective problem and ignoring them simply because we don't agree with them will do nobody any good whatsoever - we/you will simply get more of the same if we don't take responsibility.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 5:29:21 AM

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

NG - please could you answer this question? I realise you are ignoring me because I'm not in your target respondent population, (or question is too difficult) but still;

lol LadyE, trying to reel me in with insults, that old chestnut eh!

Well, I'm not that arsed about gun ownership, in fact, fuck it, I'll buy you one for Christmas - a bazooka.

What I'm really interested in is the symbol/power it holds for American society and, as I'm on a board full of Americans, I thought I'd take my opportunity.

As for the question being too difficult, can you rephrase in words of two syllables or provide pictures or something to help me out?

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to LadyEllen)

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 5:45:56 AM

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

It seems like different reasons for different people.

If the argument is gun ownership is symbolic of your civil rights then I can understand this - every people values their freedom of choice. If the argument is for personal entertainment then, although I don't agree with the idea of hunting, I can understand why you want to hang on to your entertainment.

The argument about personal security - is robbery really a crime punishable by death? Surely the only long term solution to robbery is to create a prosperous society for all citizens.

I can't see any logic in the argument that you need guns to protect yourselves from invaders or the Government. No one is going to invade the US and the Government are not about to turn the army on you - if you say they are corrupt and fleecing you then I have no issue with this but you are no different to Europe in this regard.

The point about the ballot-box being rigged - sometimes we/you just have to hold our hands up and admit that some of the people couldn't give a flying one about the rest of the people and that is why we have these Governments (nothing to do with election rigging). In Britain, we have a two party system where both parties are in the pockets of big business because as a people we are prepared to accept this. We're allowing them to get away with it as we're voting for them and the unpalatable truth is the majority of people want their luxury at the expense of the rest of the people and they are getting this by endorsing a two-party system that creates a huge wealth gap. At the moment, there is no all of the people for all of the people. Is it any different in the US? Blaming the Government all of the time is the get out of jail free card. We elect them, they represent us, we get the Governments we deserve. The people running the show have not come down from another planet - they're part of the same society we are. If you don't want the current lot or the alternatives in power then the only alternative is to get rid and create a political movement that genuinely values civil liberties. Sitting in a house with a bazooka and hand grenades is not going to change your current style of Government - you'll only get more of the same.

There doesn't appear to be any credible alternative party emerging to fill the void outside of the two-party system - this in itself indicates that as people, both in the US and Britain, it is because the majority of people want a society for some of the people at the expense of the rest of the people.

The point about protecting what is yours - who is the perceieved threat? The Government? The poorest sections of the US? or both? The reason I ask is because I'm trying to understand if the issue is one of genuine concern for civil liberties (for all of the people) or a deep tooted conservatism aimed at maintaining the status quo.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 5:47:19 AM

Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

You have just enlightened me as to why you need guns in the US. Apart from the picture you paint it of being like the lawless Congo outback, it has smarmy people like you who think violence solves violence. Probably why US policy is working so well in the ME.

Make that paranoid too.

I see you are fulfilling my prophecy about the ridiculousness of your posting.

Your foolish error is believing there is a solution to violence in the first place. So long as human beings exist in their natural state violence will exist. Maybe your reckless and misguided idealism might help you breathe a sigh of relief at night before your head hits the pillow, but it neither has nor will have any practical impact on the problems of society whatsoever, and the evidence corroborates this. Moreover, I don't seek to solve violence with violence. I neither seek nor crusade for anything of the sort. I assure you however, the answer to the threat of deadly force visited upon me will be answered in kind and one way or the other, it will be "solved" and in a manner in which my assailant had not bargained for.

Paranoia is an "unreasonable" fear that some sort of harm will be visited upon you. I fail to see how making an attempt to secure my personal defense is an unreasonable fear. Why is that paranoia...because the statistics indicate that 90% (or some other large number) of inhabitants of civilized nations will not be victims of violent crime? The thing is that I have already had the misfortune of an armed robber trying to ply his trade upon me with a gun. Unfortunately for him, he tried mug a man who had a gun and his plans didn't work out quite the way he planned. Perhaps in your fantasy world you have the luxury of calling people who find it necessary to protect themselves "paranoid" but in my world my preparations saved my life. That night I fought back against violent crime, and thanks to my equipment and mental preparredness, I won.

As far as your red herring argument about the middle east I will say that I find such tangential comments dead giveaways that the person making an argument has lost and is trying to change directions to save face. That and your "pacifist", gun-grabbing nation was right there to join in the fray.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 5:54:52 AM

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

NG - please could you answer this question? I realise you are ignoring me because I'm not in your target respondent population, (or question is too difficult) but still;

lol LadyE, trying to reel me in with insults, that old chestnut eh!

Yup - if its the only way to get an answer. I could try verbal humiliation on you too, if you like?

Well, I'm not that arsed about gun ownership, in fact, fuck it, I'll buy you one for Christmas - a bazooka.

Great! Thanks! Can you put a pink wribbon round it please? (and let me know your car registration plate number? LOL!)

What I'm really interested in is the symbol/power it holds for American society and, as I'm on a board full of Americans, I thought I'd take my opportunity.

Strangely enough, I realised that - it was mentioned in the lead up to the question. I only ask because its relevant really on a broader scale - why shouldnt I or Americans be permitted to own a gun?

As for the question being too difficult, can you rephrase in words of two syllables or provide pictures or something to help me out?

Sorry to hear this. I took advantage of a basic state education (learnin') you see, and managed to learn a lot of words with more than two syllables (sounds). It makes it difficult (hard) to answer your request. However (but) I will go outside and ask the people who can sell me a handgun for a hundred quid, if they could translate for me, and try to get back to you.

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 5:55:33 AM

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Oh, whatever NorthernGent ... last week is was our healthcare system ... next week it will be something new ... you are pretty much endless and transparent.

You seem to take criticism of your Government as a personal insult which is ironic because while other Americans are defending their right to criticise their Government on this very thread you are defending the right of the Government not to be criticised.

If you don't agree with posts/points then defend your view and win the argument. On the other hand, if criticism of the US Government is too much for you to handle then just save yourself the stress and move on to threads that don't question the actions of your Government.

Let me guess the reply, "you're not American so mind your own fucking business

" - when your husband criticises the way you cook his steaks what are you going to say "you're not a fucking steak so mind your own fucking business" and then wink at him?

You may a bright girl, I haven't seen many of your posts so can't say but improved discussion skills would certainly improve the all round package.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to caitlyn)

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 5:55:38 AM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

Paranoia is an "unreasonable" fear that some sort of harm will be visited upon you. I fail to see how making an attempt to secure my personal defense is an unreasonable fear. Why is that paranoia...because the statistics indicate that 90% (or some other large number) of inhabitants of civilized nations will not be victims of violent crime?

A quick crossing between the US and Canada and you will find one society a lot more paranoid than the other. You only have to read many arguments put forward by Americans about the right to own guns, fear of being robbed or raped or some other crime. The fear factor is talked up and creates fear in its turn. There are illegal arms in western Europe and it hits the news from time to time but guns don't cross the minds of ordinary people from one year to the next, well not in my experience.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 10/13/2006 5:58:06 AM >

(in reply to Pulpsmack)

RE: The US and guns - 10/13/2006 6:06:34 AM

Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

It seems like different reasons for different people.

If the argument is gun ownership is symbolic of your civil rights then I can understand this - every people values their freedom of choice. If the argument is for personal entertainment then, although I don't agree with the idea of hunting, I can understand why you want to hang on to your entertainment.

The argument about personal security - is robbery really a crime punishable by death? Surely the only long term solution to robbery is to create a prosperous society for all citizens.

Which of course is an unworkable solution due to human greed and desire to exploit weaknesses for personal gain.

quote:

I can't see any logic in the argument that you need guns to protect yourselves from invaders or the Government. No one is going to invade the US and the Government are not about to turn the army on you - if you say they are corrupt and fleecing you then I have no issue with this but you are no different to Europe in this regard.

Shortly after the Revolutionary war the, English invaded again in the war of 1812. So you are incorrect from the point of history... someone did. Moreover we have 2 large borderland nations, Mexico and Canada. We are being invaded by illegal immigrants on a daily basis. Not exactly an armed horde, but nevertheless a parasitic infestation that is eroding the prosperity of this country (and I will be the first to point out that it is our fault for creating conditions that foster it, such as cheap labor). More importantly, there are terrorist groups that are invading the same way (and again, I will point out that these groups aren't armed hoardes en masse). But such armed invasions were not the impetus for the second amendment (the right to bear arms). The impetus was to arm the people in order to keep the government in check for fear of an armed rebellion. One of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson believed that a healthy nation is one that experiences a rebellion every 20 years. You lack knowledge of US history if you believe the government will not turn (para)military troops on its own people. Protesting blacks bore the brunt of such assaults during the civil rights movements of the 1960s. The 1971 Kent state massacre is another example. In the 1990s paramilitary invasions spread across the nation. Instead of the army or national guard, the paramilitary groups like the ATF, DEA, and FBI made illegal raids upon private property without lawful cause, such as Ruby Ridge, and Waco. Some people believe our patriot act legislation will be the curtain call for the next wave of attacks on the US citizenry by the government.

It is true that people don't need weapons for revolution. People need only be poor enough, hungry enough, or pissed enough. But that comes at the cost of losing the soceity. The arms were foreseen first as a deterrent against illegal measures of tyranny that violated the constitution and principles of the republic, and second as a means to dispense with these tyrants in a quick enough manner to preserve the republic rather than allow 40-80 years of oppression to change the face of society and the identity of the nation.

quote:

The point about the ballot-box being rigged - sometimes we/you just have to hold our hands up and admit that some of the people couldn't give a flying one about the rest of the people and that is why we have these Governments (nothing to do with election rigging). In Britain, we have a two party system where both parties are in the pockets of big business because as a people we are prepared to accept this. We're allowing them to get away with it as we're voting for them and the unpalatable truth is the majority of people want their luxury at the expense of the rest of the people and they are getting this by endorsing a two-party system that creates a huge wealth gap. At the moment, there is no all of the people for all of the people. Is it any different in the US? Blaming the Government all of the time is the get out of jail free card. We elect them, they represent us, we get the Governments we deserve. The people running the show have not come down from another planet - they're part of the same society we are. If you don't want the current lot or the alternatives in power then the only alternative is to get rid and create a political movement that genuinely values civil liberties. Sitting in a house with a bazooka and hand grenades is not going to change your current style of Government - you'll only get more of the same.

There doesn't appear to be any credible alternative party emerging to fill the void outside of the two-party system - this in itself indicates that as people, both in the US and Britain, it is because the majority of people want a society for some of the people at the expense of the rest of the people.

The point about protecting what is yours - who is the perceieved threat? The Government? The poorest sections of the US? or both? The reason I ask is because I'm trying to understand if the issue is one of genuine concern for civil liberties (for all of the people) or a deep tooted conservatism aimed at maintaining the status quo.

Valid questions and understandable confusion. Answers are not easy here and you will not get a consensus, by any means

< Message edited by Pulpsmack -- 10/13/2006 6:16:58 AM >

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The US and guns

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.297