Discussion on:

Constitutional Rights vs Voice of the People

Disclaimer: I am not stating a personal position either way. I have mixed feelings toward the issue and, while it is not taking place in my country, it is certainly something many US friends and associates are debating so it is still newsworthy for me.
Constitutional Rights vs Voice of the People:

The US 2nd amendment to the Constitution , as every American knows, allow for the right to bear arms due to the need of a well regulated militia to protect a free state or for personal defense.

There are a million different ways of defining it further as the text was initially so vague, yet very specifically targeted in its application. This application seems to span a much broader application these days. Now it seems that any US citizen that wants to carry a concealed weapon states its a Constitutional right as if God himself had provided such open choice. There seems to be a very loose understanding/interpretation of the application of such rights, right across the board. Even freedom of speech is taken to an extreme with people feeling they can say what they want to say, wherever and whenever, regardless if in a private business, website or whatever. 1st amendment is not my focus here though.

On the radio today they were saying how almost 60% of Americans agree with Obama's desire to increase gun control and place tighter restrictions regarding issuing a CCW licence and simply making screening a bit tougher for people, helping to weed out SOME of the nutjobs and yet upstanding citizens should still not have any issues obtaining a permit.

Almost 60% is not some staggering landslide in favour, and such pols are usually very loosely applied and no where near as accurate as a formal vote, well as accurate as a formal vote is SUPPOSED to be anyway.

The number, whether 60% or merely 51% is STILL a majority though. So where is the line for Americans?

IF, it is found that a majority are in favour of stricter gun control laws, (I am not talking about completely eliminating everyone's right to own a firearm), then does that not supersede Constitutional amendments?

TR has an interesting cross section of red and blue states so I am sure personal opinions vary but I think the problem, as it seems happens always in the US, is understanding of the proposed actions.

Media sensationalizes such events into a pi$$ing contest between left and right, as a result, the causation and proposed resolutions are completely lost. Such as the GW debate, reasons for recent wars etc. There's so much smoke and mirrors shown to public that nobody knows what they are arguing about.

So bottom line, and merely from what I understand, Obama is not seeking to rid Americans of their right to bear arms (which incidentally was carried over from a British law allowing Protestants to protect themselves in the late 1600's). Obama is seeking to make obtaining a firearm licence a bit harder. Increased screening, perhaps a delay when you want to buy a new .45 when the tax return comes in.

Given recent events in the US:
How can ANYONE oppose such control when it is NOT removing your civil rights and stands to help a problem everyone recognizes no matter their political views?

When does the majority actually trump the constitution?

What is the fear so many Americans share? Is it loss of rights, established for an 18th century society, that they see becoming greater and greater over time? Is it that they simply don't understand what is being proposed because they are blinded by a biased media?

Questions, not opinions, it would be nice to have a healthy debate without right vs left mudslinging as that is what I see as clouding the path to reality and causing such fury in the masses.

At one time, the majority of the country agreed:

It was good to own other human beings.

It was good that only people with property could vote.

It was good that women could not vote.

It was good that minorities could not vote.

My take on the whole mess:

Rule by democracy is a quick slide into totalitarianism.

The first 10 amendments of the Constirution are designed to protect the people from the government. Any other argument is simply ignorant of the history of the document.

All of the former policies you point out were eventually overridden by Constitutional amendments as the opinion of the majority changed, not against their will. I don't need to go into the details of passing an amendment for you, but it's darn near impossible without majority approval, especially when it hits the state legislatures for ratification.

Likewise, as the majority once passed the second amendment, the majority can lean on its representatives to repeal it (and any others), as other amendments have been repealed. That's why there's an amending mechanism in the first place. If the Founding Fathers hadn't intended the Constitution to be a living, alterable document, they wouldn't have included an amending process. The second amendment is no different from any other amendment. It was added to the original Constitution like the other amendments, and like them it can be changed or removed.

Good to see you back, by the way. Stick around a while, will ya?

See me back? I'm new!

I understand there's a process in place and that if the majority agree with it, they can amend it. What I don't see is any real action in that direction as it would be, unconstitutional, it seems.

IF there's even a vague hint toward ANY form of legislation, control, amendment...ANYTHING AT ALL, the noise gets so loud everyone runs, covers their ears and bites their tongues. It is simply unAmerican to many it seems.

Of course it will never be a reasoned debate on a focused topic. As soon as Obama says he wants to impose stricter regulations for obtaining a firearms permit, half of America stands up to shout about a left wing, black man is taking away their rights to protect their loved ones. How America has gone to hell in a hand basket, because someone might make it takes a few days longer for them to buy a new gun.

As a resident of another country, it's absolutely ridiculous that ANY defense, especially false opposition, would have any precedence in such cases.

I'm sure I'll get the boot again for speaking my mind sooner or later. Then again, I don't see that old knob of a blogger here anymore. One who was always right about topics he was completely devoid of any knowledge of.

That was directed to BFilmFan, the person I was replying to.

I was always around, just the old organization's social media policy aka The UnOfficial Gag Order, really kept me from saying much.

New Organization doesn't care a great deal, as long as I don't comment about them or one of their clients.

I am still getting used to these boards, forums or whatever they are called here.

stick around for as long as I have, and you won't be confused... oh, wait. No, it just gets worse, really

?

Bad enough he's worried about getting shot when he's within 10 or 12 miles of the border. Don't feed his schizophrenia.

Boy, this discussion just rolled over and died.

I live within 10 miles of the border (7 actually), but the lineups are tremendous (45mins - 1.5hrs avg. even in off times). I just drive another 15 minutes along 0 ave and the other crossing takes minutes. I'm in the states 3 or 4 times a month, cheap gas,

Americans with guns don't bother me, raising a child in America would though.

I won't disagree that amending the Constitution can be, and has been done. It's a difficult process on purpose on purpose and I think removal of any of the Bill Of Rights would be difficult, if not result in a second civil war.

No, they simply use Executive Orders and legislative and administrative law to limit our freedoms.

Ask yourself the next time there is a political convention, why in the world there is a Free Speech Zone.

As any politician would feed to the news. those Free Speech Zones are for allowing those people freedom of speech without hindrance. It allows for peaceful protest. As, generally, these groups are a minority in a large group of supporters, it would stop supporters from harming protesters and taking away their freedom to peacefully protest.

Now the real reason? So the print and video shots will only show raucous support for the furor. You don't get someone holding up a dead, oil covered duck while crying KILLERS, which would rain on the parade. That plus its easier to avoid getting shot when they are all in once place.

I think the root cause is the inability (or refusal) to see that life is not a zero-sum game. And that's as far down that road as I have time for, right now...

For guns, take away the right from anyone you don't feel is worthy of it (like the Founding Fathers did) - AND, for the select people you deem worthy of it, it's not a right, it's a DUTY. And you demand that they buy a firearm that the state approves, and then require them to go to regular training camps at their own expense.

I foresee a quick end to the gun debate following that.

So have the government build a militia to protect against the government?

Remember, the Founding Fathers were practically all atheists, so they weren't IDIOTS.

The government makes sure that the people know that guns aren't fun and games.
Like with little children, if you make smoking a chore, they'll stop by themselves.

If you want a gun, make it mandatory military training.

We all know that nobody with military training has been irresponsible with their gun.

That's all.

But is that enough? Considering most Americans spend time in the military at some time or other, I think the scale would be a broad one there too. I know you aren't forced into the military but it easier to count those who DIDN'T serve as opposed to those that have.

I know some it would stop. Like the little old lady I saw in walmart testing out a pistol with a laser. Claiming she needed protection while she runs in the morning.

"Considering most Americans spend time in the military at some time or other...it easier to count those who DIDN'T serve as opposed to those that have."

Where did you get that notion?

ABC News said in 2011 there were under 23 million veterans, then roughly 7% of the population.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-veterans-numbers/story?id=14928136#1

The US Dept. of Veterans Affairs predicts by 2015 the number of living veterans will be less than 15 million, or less than 5% of the population.

https://www.va.gov/vetdata/Veteran_Population.asp

It's hardly worth adding in the 2.3 million currently on active or reserve status, less than 1% of the population.

Almost all Americans I have spoken with have either been in the military or have a family member in the military; I can't think of any who haven't anyway. Perhaps many are full of BS and it's just a pride thing to say they were but it sure as hell seems that everyone has served at one time or another.

P.S. You are also referring to veterans only, not the 4 million members you have today also (active, reserve and paramilitary). Being the 2nd largest military in the world and having such easy access to guns, just makes America a military focused country. Sort of a moot point though, ask almost anyone in the world and you are seen through the same eyes. "America" (a generalization) is obsessed with military, guns and war. Doesn't matter what country you are in, that's the common understanding.

Now I'm cleaning my monitor !

" the Founding Fathers were practically all atheists, so they weren't IDIOTS."

Priceless!

You find fault in the statement? If so, you might take a peek back into what we know as American history. Indeed, it would be in err to suggest that all of the Founders were Atheists. However, there can be little doubt from what we might discern today, that few of them were Christians.
Heck, the religious oppression experienced abroad is what brought many here to begin with!

That said, I feel that making the assumption that anyone choosing to believe in God is an idiot is foolish as well. Idiots abound on all sides of any argument or belief. His manner of expressing the reality of the matter leaves no middle ground. Not a good idea for something so irrefutably beyond one's ability to demonstrate or refute.

Just stop shooting each other. It's not a difficult concept. People in other countries have guns without the constitutional right to, and they are not breaking into schools and shooting children. That's an American thing.

Call a cease fire and tell others to stop buying and selling drugs while you are at it.

From there just tell people to stop getting people pregnant when they aren't ready to have children, rape isn't a good things and they should stop all that too.

The only problem with all that is eventually you wake up and realize it's morning again.

Killing is good, lets round up children and randomly shoot up a school each week. That's the American way right? Since clearly you have given up in trying to stop people from shooting children. You might as well join in with your countrymen right?

I might have accepted them. To simply suggest. "stop shooting each other" is a fantasy at best. Unfortunately we live in the real world and such things are not reality.

If it was as easy as you put forth, why hasn't possibly facing life in prison stopped it?
It is illegal, wouldn't that trump "stop shooting each other"?

I'm sure someone thought of your idea already, centuries before the US was even discovered.

When people speak of other nations that have very few homicides by firearms each year, it's generally toward countries that have stricter gun control laws, despite having similar "rights" in their bill of rights. It's harder to obtain a legal firearm and the citizens of those nations don't have a desire to carry a concealed weapon as if its a God given right.

It's a typical sense of entitlement simply due to a 230 year old document, written in a time when such atrocities. such as children on school shooting sprees, were not the forefront of society.
Thousands upon thousands of Americans die each year as a result of hanging on to this outdated BS and and yet Americans are scratching their heads as to why and how to reduce it?

You can't change it because it's sacred, you must abide by it, as it is sacred.

I'm not against guns ownership at all, I'm not against protecting one's property, loved ones or person, with enough force to stop the threat (in which case shooting any intruders often doesn't play a role at all).

I just don't like cowboys and gun toting clowns that are so ignorant and irresponsible that they can't recognize the problem beyond whining about the left wing in the process.

But choosing not to kill is a very easy thing to do.

You say its a fantasy to not shoot people. How so? The only other places where these mass shooting happens are in war zones and terrorists zones. That's the company America keeps. How is it a fantasy when a good chuck of the world live it as a reality. Do you just mean it is a fantasy to an American? Because if so, tell them to leave, move to another country and their fantasy can be a reality.

I'm sure someone thought of your idea already, centuries before the US was even discovered.
your right, we can probably find lots of countries were the citizens don't feel the need to kill each other.

When people speak of other nations that have very few homicides by firearms each year, it's generally toward countries that have stricter gun control laws, despite having similar "rights" in their bill of rights. It's harder to obtain a legal firearm and the citizens of those nations don't have a desire to carry a concealed weapon as if its a God given right.
I suggested making it harder by requiring military training. You refused that too.

It's a typical sense of entitlement simply due to a 230 year old document, written in a time when such atrocities. such as children on school shooting sprees, were not the forefront of society.
Sure they were, America has been constantly at war.

Thousands upon thousands of Americans die each year as a result of hanging on to this outdated BS and and yet Americans are scratching their heads as to why and how to reduce it?
Plenty want to change it. Problem is, they are not united. America still suffers north vs south, left vs right.
Maybe one day they will, but probably not, not until it is so bad that people start en mass moving away from America.

I'm not against guns ownership at all, I'm not against protecting one's property, loved ones or person, with enough force to stop the threat (in which case shooting any intruders often doesn't play a role at all).
Tasers are more fun anyways.
In Canada it is actually illegal to shoot someone that is invading your home. Americans use this as an example to why having guns is good. But the fact is, the home invasions rarely happen, and instances where people are killed are even rarer. Of course, I would still shoot the attacker dead if I had the opportunity.

I just don't like cowboys and gun toting clowns that are so ignorant and irresponsible that they can't recognize the problem beyond whining about the left wing in the process.
It seems like a good chunk of Americans fall into this category.

The "made up" comment: "The only other places where these mass shooting happens are in war zones and terrorists zones. That's the company America keeps."

July 22, 2011: At least 80 people are killed at a summer camp on the Norwegian island of Utoya. A man arrested also is suspected in a blast earlier the same day in downtown Oslo that killed seven. (This gunman, by the way, was sentenced to 21 years of preventive detention,)

April 30, 2009: Farda Gadyrov, 29, enters the prestigious Azerbaijan State Oil Academy in the capital, Baku, armed with an automatic pistol and clips. He kills 12 people before killing himself as police close in.

Sept. 23, 2008: Matti Saari, 22, walks into a vocational college in Kauhajoki, Finland, and opens fire, killing 10 people and burning their bodies with firebombs before shooting himself fatally in the head.

Nov. 7, 2007: After revealing plans for his attack in YouTube postings, 18-year-old Pekka-Eric Auvinen fires kills eight people at his high school in Tuusula, Finland

April 26, 2002: Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, who had been expelled from school in Erfurt, Germany, kills 13 teachers, two former classmates and policeman, before committing suicide

April 28, 1996: Martin Bryant, 29, bursts into cafeteria in seaside resort of Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia, shooting 20 people to death. Driving away, he kills 15 others. He was captured and imprisoned.

March 13, 1996: Thomas Hamilton, 43, kills 16 kindergarten children and their teacher in elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and then kills himself.

Dec. 6, 1989: Marc Lepine, 25, bursts into Montreals Ecole Polytechnique college, shooting at women he encounters, killing nine and then himself

Aug. 19, 1987: Michael Ryan, 27, kills 16 people in small market town of Hungerford, England, and then shoots himself dead after being cornered by police.
_____________________

P.S. And the really sad thing is, when such "made up" comments are called-out and corrected, the person who made-up the comment will neither retract the comment, or change the mind-set that led to making the comment - and will, most likely, continue saying (and thinking) it.

You had to trawl more than one continent and a quarter of a century to get that list. Then you posted it to prove - what? That Slayer used a bit of hyperbole.

This is not made up. In excess of one million US citizens have been killed by firearms in the period covered by your list, above. Nowhere, outside of a war zone, comes close.

I posted all the dates, facts, and figures. I mislead nothing. I replied to a "mass murder" claim, not your total gun related deaths - like the ones that take place in the gang infested areas of our larger metropolitan areas - hundreds each year in Chicago alone!

P.S. You, Neil, and all the others around here CONTINUALLY post misleading crap. If you want to make comparisons with America, you'd better compare it to the whole of Europe. You and I both know what the definition of "state" is, although not many around here probably do. The United States of America would be more accurately compared to a figurative United States of Europe, so as to include land mass, diversity, population, etc. Anything less is either misleading or dishonest.

Is your point that it can be worse elsewhere? Fine, I'll agree.
Your most recent, the Oslo killings. That was really bad. But are you comparing America's shooting rates to that one incident in Oslo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Take a look at that. Oddly America isn't that bad in comparison.
Greenland is worse. Are people aiming at polar bears and accidentally shooting fat people in white snowsuits?

But if America was so safe, why does everyone feel they need a gun to protect themselves?

The EU consists of 27 "states" with a total population of 503.5 million approximately 38% more than the US with over 311.5 million or a difference of 192 million, a difference that is 5.5 times the TOTAL POPULATION of Canada, just the DIFFERENCE in population.

With a population difference of over 192 million people, the EU has approximately 60% FEWER intentional deaths by handgun each year.

In real numbers, the total intentional deaths in the EU by handgun for 2012 were 5,849 (again as a total of 27 countries/states)

In real numbers, the total intentional deaths in the US by handgun
for 2012 were 14,748.

How can anyone POSSIBLY compare the two and see ANY comparison whatsoever in these figures?
192 million more people, in the WHOLE EU, and yet 8,629 fewer intentional homicides by handgun than in the USA?

There is a MASSIVE difference in gun laws too.

You said, "The only other places where these mass shooting happens are in war zones and terrorists zones. That's the company America keeps."

The "war zone" of Norway saw well over eighty (80+) killed in one day - mostly young children - in the killing fields of that Nordic European nation state - much more than the American state of Connecticut.

.And that "war zone" in the Nordic European nation state of Finland, there were just as many as in the American state of Connecticut - well over 20.

Over the past five years, there were MORE gun related mass murders in Nordic Europe than in the whole of America's New England region.

That's a high pedestal you put yourself on. lol

/sarcasm

I think he's saying that, as a war zone, it's not much worse than others that he personally sees as a war zone also. Stats between the EU and US prove otherwise though.

Nobody can possibly claim that the US is not a war zone, I think even the president would find that a stretch.

Finland has more guns than is wise : 1,5 million firearms for a population of 6 million, and for that reason Finland has had school shootings. However, their number is less than a handful in over twenty years.

I know you're such a good Poker player, that you'd win most of the pots.

You're SO GOOD, in fact, that the other players at the table will start to cry foul (or fowl if the chicken tenders are gone). No fair, they will say. You grew up with a Poker playing mama as a mama, and your birth circumstances gives you an unfair advantage.

Since I've played Poker with this crowd before, I know they'll try to make the game more "fair" for other players ("fair" will be their word, not yours) - you know, for those players who weren't born with a silver Poker Chip in their hands. They like to vote, so be forewarned.

I was once sitting pretty with trip tens, and they "voted" to make two pair, if they were all face cards, BEAT three of a kind. How do you like that? They voted to change the friggin' rules in midstream and I lost the friggin' hand!

They should have taken action to change the rules the proper way, you know, through the Poker Congress or whatever. But no, they just took a straw vote and I lost!

The constitution is the rules of the game, so to speak. It's why we DO NOT have a Democracy in America. The founders knew that a pure democracy would become just as tyrannical as a dictatorship - tyranny of the majority. That's why we have a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. A Constitutional Republic compels them play by the rules and not eat the lamb - even if the lamb is a millionaire and the wolves are starving.

At one time, the federal government did not have the power to collect income tax. It took a Constitutional Amendment - changing the rules; adding to the power we give the government.

In theory, the federal government has no power except that which is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, either by article or amendment.

The CORRECT way to give power to the government of the United States IS NOT through a vote of the people (or through a vote in Congress), but rather through a change to the constitution - voting to amend the constitution, which takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress and two-thirds of the states' legislators.

Today, we have a government that IS NOT playing by the rules. Show me in the constitution, for example, the specific article or amendment (note I said "specific") which bestows upon the federal government the power to force citizens of the USA to buy a specific product (medical insurance). And unfortunately, we have an electorate who is either too ignorant and uninformed, or they feel so elitist, or others who feel so entitled, that they, too, will circumvent the Constitution at every turn. And the politicians play these voters like a fine tuned fiddle.

Generally speaking, most Americans don't fully understand our constitution, much less people from other countries. Everything ANSU has said in this discussion, for example, is dead wrong. He makes a silly assertion and treats it as truth. Kind of like a lot of Americans do.

And that is the problem. People don't want to play by the rules. They want to make up their own.

(And for those who might feel compelled to say something silly like, life is not a game, blah, blah, blah...... well, please spare us all.)

By the way, the constitution was not written for 18th Century society, as you've too often, and incorrectly, suggested. It was written for human nature. Societies might change, but human nature does not. It's a timeless challenge for which no perfect solution can be found, because those humans actually see the world through different colored glasses, they have different dreams and ambitions, they have different values and cultural considerations, religious beliefs, etc.

As such, it's not practical to try to find "common ground", so to speak, on which everyone can agree, but rather find a way to accommodate the differences. And in my opinion, the best effort in the history of mankind to accommodate such differences was initiated in 18th Century America. And it's a damn shame we have people who don't even understand it, but who are trying to destroy it. .

"... to amend the constitution, which takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress and two-thirds of the states' legislators."

It takes ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures, not two-thirds. It's rare I can catch you on a point of Constitutional accuracy. I'll treasure the moment.

..... greatly appreciated, as I hate misinformation (especially if it comes from me).

I would make some silly excuse for my error, but I'll not ruin your moment.

Thanks for the chuckle; I needed it today.

The constitution is so enduring, in part, because it's so short. Most countries seem to view their constitutions as the supreme legal code, and write the document as though it were to be the clear cut arbiter of every argument. The U.S. document lays out a skeletal structure of government, a few goals and principles, and a minimal number of managing directives. It is then up to each age to fit its new set of problems against that short script, with the help of constitutional courts.

The constitution works, and lasts, because it is flexible, and allows government to evolve in line with the evolution of the problems of government.

Human nature makes up society. It makes people who they are and that does change over time. you can't suggest that the mindset of people today, reflects that of someone in the 1700's. I know what you are trying to suggest, natural instinct etc. but natural instincts DO change, look at animals for instance. Natural instinct of a dog is to bite, however over many decades, many breeds have been pacified so it is inherent in their nature NOT to be aggressive toward humans, too many generations pass and their history becomes their nature.

Certainly core human value such as protecting family, home, finding food, etc. are natural instincts, but that is merely a survival 'instinct', not to be confused with human nature, which does change over time as needed.

To suggest otherwise is to completely discount evolution, every life form on Earth evolves as needed as does their mental nature.

Man has evolved a lot over time, even though not so much physically, certainly what is deemed human nature has also. Even then, man has physically evolved over time too, even in the last few hundred years.

Evolution changes everything, physically and mentally.

To suggest that human nature was understood so well, in the late 1700's, that they were able to draft a short set of rights that would suitably carry Americans into the next millennium is pretty naive, especially for you.

In the late 1700's they were only just getting over having legal witch hunts! Great grasp of mankind indeed!
"We've found a witch, may we burn her?"
"How do you know she is a witch?"
"She looks like one"
"Bring her forward"
"I'm NOT a witch, I'm NOT a witch!"
"But you are dressed as one!"
"THEY dressed me up like this"
"Did YOU dress her up like this?"
"Noo, noo, well a bit, a bit, we did do the nose,...and the hat, she's got a wart!"
"How do you KNOW she is a witch?"
"Well she turned me into a NEWT!!!.......uh, well it got better, but she's still a witch!"

So logically she was a witch.

Build a bridge out of 'er!
Ah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Oh, yeah!

Absolutely timeless and priceless, what a brilliant crew!

nt

In a Vancouver suburb, a few years back, we had a series of shootings too. Most were attributed to a mafia style gang war going on between two organized crime groups. Not exactly a nut case walking in and shooting up a school but still murders all the same, also not mass killings but targeted killings of one or two a day for a little while. The guy, who oddly I know from way back when, is facing trial which starts pretty soon.

The last couple of days it has been happening again. 4 guys the other night and 4 last night too, again targeted shootings of longshoremen.

So yes, people here do have guns and do shoot each other, though probably less in a year than a week in LA, and these are not random acts of violence, they are targeted, gang wars.

Of course criminals will obtain guns no matter how many restrictions are placed on them. Our border with the US is enormous and all but impossible to completely lock down too, it's a given that crime will cross between out two countries.

Gin control does seem to have a positive impact here though, despite our being so close together and with so much daily traffic and trade between us. Just a small change in laws seems to have a more positive impact on our country though.
I'm not saying that gun control is the whole reason we have such low homicide by gun rates but I am positive that it plays a role in such low numbers.

Its better than imprisoning them, cheaper too. Just as long as they don't shoot any innocents.

It's gang violence, very targeted. There was a case a few years back with one of the gangs where a wife of a member was intentionally killed in her car, but VERY seldom are innocent passers by involved.

Last night there were four people shot (though not killed) at a small convention centre on the edge of Richmond. Again gang related, but I drove through there this morning and often stop to eat lunch by the river just down the street.
I will continue to stop and eat lunch there as it is a very safe and quiet area and nobody feels threatened there. Gangs don't just wander the 'hood around here, hassling people who are on their turf. These things are usually targeted between gangs that are small, usually drug related, union related etc.

We had turf wars when I was a teenager, East vs West but it was nothing in comparison to what most Americans are used to. It was just fist fights, brawls etc. between rival high schools.
Upper vs middle class, typical teenage stuff. 'I don't have a new BMW to hang out with my friends so we'll take a bus there and beat you up for being stuck up.'

These days its a bit more focused between organized crime groups but still nothing like we see out of the US on the news each night, in fact I don't even think it would be on the news there at all, where there are much bigger stories to air.

It's not American guns that lead to our murder-by-gun rate; it's that we tend to frame problems in absolute ways, and go for the gun once we've boxed ourselves in. Americans have always seen themselves in terms of the individual against the world, and make our inspirational stories around uncompromising brave loners who aren't afraid to fight. It's built into so much of our popular entertainment, from westerns to spy movies to zombie apocalypses: the true man is the one who resolves his problems by terminating his opposition. Maybe it's part of the frontier legacy, where all men, decent or criminal, were beyond the shelter of the law, and everyone had to choose to fight or to bow down.

I don't think you're going to change this feature of American character by prohibiting items. It's based on something subtle and enduring. It doesn't grow from having guns in the house, or from watching violent movies, or from playing violent video games. The ideal of the fighting man is embedded in our history.

You are very right in that it is a cultural thing to stand your ground, a man on man standoff out at high noon etc. But yes, intentional deaths by handgun are very related to that mindset. That's why everyone sees Americans as arrogant, warmongers, it's the attitude. Even watching Celeb Big Brother UK last night, they have a couple of Americans on that were famed from being on The Hills (which I never saw but have heard of) Heidi and Spencer if that means anything to anyone. Now Americans are often on Celeb Big Brother UK and they usually do quite well with respect to being accepted by others in the house. This year, Spencer turned up wearing camouflage, just like the average hunter or sportsman, no Gilley suit or anything. They were INSTANTLY disliked due to their holier than thou attitude and Spencer dressing like Rambo.

Housemates were initially broken into two groups and, when they had an opportunity to meet, Heidi and Spencer (aka Spidey) wouldn't go outside to meet the others, they sat in bed and bad mouthed the others to the cameras instead, even though they hadn't actually met or spoken to anyone. It comes across as a typical, "We are American and we don't feel we need to stoop low enough to meet with you now"

Then when there are games where the housemates all have to participate together to earn food money for the house, "Spidey" again sits out or complains about their religion (Christianity) and marital vows (such as with a party game where you pass a piece of gross food mouth to mouth down a line, mouth to mouth merely passing a fairly large item to another, cake, soap, block of lard etc). "No I am not having my husband KISS another woman for a game, we're married and respect our vows!" It's not kissing like playing spin the bottle or something, in fact nobody even touched noses, but THEY had to be respected and sat it out (it was her more than HIM though because the girl beside him is a page 3, topless model). they are inseparable though, she calls the shots he sheep along beside her, bathroom bedroom etc never more than 3 feet apart at ANY time. (real wierd **ckers!)
If the house fails to complete a task and lives on beans and rice for the week. The Spidey attitude is "We don't care, these people ar ewierd, the hug and stuff then nominate each other." Actually, Spidey is playing the biggest FAKE game in the house.

Sorry for the segue but it's just a holy attitude that WE won't be joining in, SO WHY ARE YOU THERE THEN!?!?!? They all know what they are getting into when they sign up and Celebrity Big Brother PAYS them to be there! Complete losers that cast a **** shadow on American society.

"It's not American guns that lead to our murder-by-gun rate; it's that we tend to frame problems in absolute ways, and go for the gun once we've boxed ourselves in."

The American guns are not the problem, the people who OWN american guns are the problem. or It's not guns that kill, it's people WITH guns that kill.

Either way, the gun is the tool that people with such a mindset are using to kill one another, intentionally.

I'm a mechanic, if I don't have the tools for the job, I can't perform the job.
I DO have most tools for most jobs because I have invested in them for decades now, they are affordable and readily available. In some cases, a specific tool or machine is needed that I either can't acquire or can't afford, I don't get to use that tool or do that job, I find another job I can do instead.

That said, how do you believe that, by making weapons a little harder for Joe Shmoe to obtain the same day he has had a face off with someone, it will not reduce the number of deaths by handgun?

Remove the tool, make it harder to obtain or more expensive to obtain and fewer people have them. Fewer armed people results in fewer people getting shot. I didn't say it STOPS such violence but it will reduce it. Baby steps.

Americans will have no trouble getting a gun somewhere in the event it becomes a little more difficult at the country gun shop. The scale of gun ownership in this country is already at such a height to render most glib solutions moot.

Also, in most cases (but not yet at gun shows), an American has to wait a day or two for his background check to go through. It already is not practical to get mad at your wife on a Saturday afternoon, go buy a weapon, and shoot her before dinner.

Its only an American thing that people use their guns to shoot other people.

Nice choice of words, LOL! "well I would have shot her, your honor, however it was impractical because it took an extra day to buy a gun!"

Now murder has to be convenient.

I get your point though, just having some fun.

In Canada "Our service standards to process a complete and accurate application are 45 days, including the 28-day legislated waiting period, for a licence application, and 30 days for a registration application."

FORTY FIVE DAYS!! Not just next day service being an inconvenience.

One can get po'd with his wife and have her dead and buried the next day. That's not a waiting period at all, not exactly time to cool down and let issue pass by.

As for having millions of guns, you are right, there's no possible way that the US could remove all guns...simply impossible.

However, if you have to wait 45 days, FEWER people would own them legally; fewer people from whom the guns would be stolen, found by children etc. They just wouldn't bother with them because it's an inconvenience and people are just incredibly lazy these days. living in a world of instantaneous everything, people have become used to not waiting for anything, therefore getting a gun would be a pain in the butt and only those who were serious about hunting, sport etc would own them.

Gangs and street guns will always be there, no possible way to stop that. The number of citizens running amok on killing sprees would go down though, and that's really what we are looking at these days, how to stop, slow down or make killing sprees inconvenient and therefore less frequent.

Is there a way to stop all killing and remove all guns? Nope, not a hope in hell so it's a moot point to consider at all. But what CAN be done to reduce these insane sprees?

Can kids buy guns on the street? Sure, you can in Canada too.
Are kids more apt to do so if there isn't one at home to steal? I highly doubt it. A gun at home is like a carrot being dangled in front of the donkey cart. "If I could get my hands on it, it would be so cool, I could make my stand, I could be known as I go down in flames, I would be somebody and nobody would ever f**k with me again, dead or not.

That same mindset driving a kid to go and buy a gun on the street wouldn't be as easy to execute and would probably just stifle over time.

Easier access to guns, makes USING guns easier too.

I don't oppose regulations or waiting periods that actually are effective, but if a law that limits freedom (and a constitutional right) is not effectual, does not move you toward what you want to accomplish, what's the point?

It also doesn't address the basic problem: privilege without duty, and a fun-and-games mentality.
Just register them and make them go for self-paid training seven weeks of the year to keep the license.

There have been many cases in the news and other media where people have bought a gun and gone straight to kill someone with it.
Stats are out there somewhere I'm sure, just as most stats are.

Media reports such as this will illustrate that it does happen, in a fit of rage and due to convenience.
"Gun Used To Kill 3 In Ky. Bought Same Day
A gunman enraged by a domestic dispute bought a gun and fatally shot his former girlfriend, her uncle and her cousin in the parking lot of a small southeastern Kentucky college, police said Wednesday.
Caitlin Cornett, 20, and her uncle Jackie Cornett, 53, were found dead at the scene when police arrived about 6 p.m. Tuesday, Hazard Police Chief Minor Allen said. Twelve-year-old Taylor Jade Cornett, who police said was shot multiple times, died Wednesday afternoon at University of Kentucky Medical Center in Lexington, said Fayette County Coroner Gary Ginn.

A semiautomatic pistol that was found at the scene and believed to have been used in the shooting was purchased the same day at a local pawn shop, Allen said."

"The Wisconsin gunman who killed his wife and two other women bought the weapon two days after a court ordered him to turn in all firearms under the terms of a restraining order, police said Monday."

A court order that would have shown up and stopped him from buying that gun IF there was a mandatory waiting period to obtain the permit.


The above was over a custody swap where they were to exchange custody of a 2 year old boy. If he had to wait a month and go through most stringent screening would this have happened? From the sound of the story, it was due to convenience and accessibility.

Another
"Haughton was arrested earlier this month for slashing his wife's tires; she was granted a four-year restraining order on Thursday.

Under the order, Haughton was prohibited from owning a firearm. But police said Monday that Haughton bought the .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun used in the deadly shooting two days later."

If there was a mandatory delay, as there is in most other countries (such as min 45 days here) his court order would most likely have shown up and shown that he was TRYING to buy a gun, authorities alerted so they can arrest him or take whatever legal action is applicable. The fact they he went straight out and 'quickly' bought a gun before paperwork was processed showing his restraining order, he was able to then go and kill with it.

Suspect Bought Gun 3 Days Before Shootings
"``He completed the necessary forms. He did everything he was supposed to do,'' Wallace said referring to the federal firearms law that requires people buying firearms to fill out a form stating they had not been convicted of a felony. ``The paperwork was in line. So was his clearance.''

....never happens.

The old, "how many people have to die before it is a problem?" must apply here too.

Therefore, from your personal perspective...how many people have to be killed in order for you to see it as a problem?
30, 500,1000? Provide an actual figure because you want stats to add weight to the reasoning.

Maybe it's a percentage that you need? 12% of all murders? The vast majority? 11% more than those who bought illegally off the streets?

Your comment is completely senseless as you are simply looking for a figure to justify how much is too much and requires corrective action an you don't even have a figure in mind to agree when it is too much.

If it was 1%, and a change in law stopped 1% from such murders, I assume that's not anywhere near enough for you to agree to corrective action, it's only 1% and it wasn't YOUR loved ones...this time.

Face it, America has a serious problem. A problem not duplicated anywhere else on the planet. America has some of the loosest gun laws on the planet, due to some text that was written several hundred years ago by a group of men who coexisted in a very different nation than the one you live in today. Yet you hang on to this outdated script as if it was sacred. It's 200+ year old POLITICAL views, nothing sacred.

When millions of Americans start seeing protecting gun ownership laws as more important than protecting American lives, you have some real issues with the mindset of American society.

What makes YOUR warped mindset and disregard for American lives any different than the mindset of a criminal who also disregards American lives? He's not a nutcase, in HIS mind, either.

It's clear that guns are used in most murders (about 66% in the U.S. last year.) It is reasonable to assume that if there were no guns availablle, there would be fewer murders. However, you won't move American society from 300 million guns to no guns. Apart from it being a practical impossibility, too many regard gun ownership and easy access to the gun market as an important right. Thus, it is also a legislative impossibility. The U.S. is not the U.K., where citizens shrug their shoulders and accept restrictions on guns; half of American households own one or more guns. A law will not work if the population does not overwhelmingly support or at least accede to it.

Even more fundamentally, what's your idea worth if it doesn't render a desired effect? Just because you can imagine a solution does not mean it will do what you think or reduce the frequency of the problem you have in mind. Somebody who feels the need to restrict people's rights and implement intrusive and controlling government programs without a clear idea of how this is going to do some good, or how its good influence can be verified, is (for lack of a better term) just j@cking off with the social contract.

Obviously, if there were no guns, murder would be more inconvenient and the rate would be expected to go down. No guns (or even few guns) ain't gonna happen. So, one needs a clear idea of means and ends.

I was working under a mistaken impression: that there was at least a one-day wait for all store sales while the Federal background check was completed. Most background checks are completed immediately, while you wait, so there is no Federal delay built in. In several states there's a three-day delay on handguns, but it's on a state-by-state basis. Most have no wait. I think a day or a week's or a month's wait would be reasonable and not a burden on anybody's freedom.

However, it's worth noting that anybody who buys a gun, and then works up an angry grudge against his wife a month later, has the weapon already in hand. And, Adam Lanza of the school shootings took his mother's guns, which were bought in Connecticut, where a two-week wait applied.

Heck my family had about 10 guns in our basement.

You don't have to destroy old guns or remove them. Just make them harder to get. 45 days waiting period is not the end of the world. And its a good first step. There is no quick solution, it has to be done slowly. So that Americans can learn and adapt to not killing children.

I have said repeatedly that there's no possible way to get all the guns off the streets, didn't work for booze or drugs either, a senseless war on drugs that your government still spends your money to thwart; It ain't gonna happen, I know, and neither will banning guns...as I have said before.

"The U.S. is not the U.K., where citizens shrug their shoulders and accept restrictions on guns; "

That's unfortunate as people in the UK actually understand their destruction to society and don't stand to promote it. Your 2nd amendment was based on British law that enabled British protestants a right to carry guns for self protection.
I suppose Brits saw the idiocy of such law continuing into more modern society and decided to support change. In America, people are brainwashed like drones for 12 years of school, and every other free minute of their lives, to defend their constitutional rights at all costs. They grow up believing in the Constitution as some believe in a god, in which case neither stand up in today's world.

Not talking about a change in law that STOPS guns, a change in law that makes it take longer to obtain one legally and helps deter impulse/rage killings.

What I get from your post is, unless you can stop it all, any reduction is just a worthless effort? Like I said before, how many is too many? How many lives SAVED is not enough lives SAVED to take action? From my view, if you stop anyone being killed at all, due to an imperfection in law, then that is a system that needed adjustment. Saving life is saving life, stop looking for a total, end all solution, there isn't one, we all agree on that.

And what's all this utter rubbish about restricting anyone's rights? I haven't suggested restricting anyone's rights, unless you feel making it it harder for any yahoo to buy a gun, with little or no screening, to be restricting their rights.

In the cases I noted above, the judge had restricted their rights already, and rightfully so. The BS system of instant gun shopping worked around that court order as it was quicker than the court paperwork was processed and put in the system. A proper waiting period that matched the time it takes to get such court ordered restrictions into the system would have saved THOSE lives and I am sure countless others. I know that, if I was an American and a judge imposed a court order against me, I'd run straight out and buy a gun while I still could. Anyone thinking otherwise is just plain naive!

Any upstanding citizen would STILL be able to own guns just as they are today

I can only imagine what your country would be like if 230 years ago they knew about cars and decided you had a right to drive. "Why should I learn to drive or have a learner's permit? Why can't I just buy a car and go run people over? It's my right to drive! I don't need to wait until the government agencies say I am fit to drive, that's a violation of my rights!"

Given that scenario, I suppose you would still oppose the government making it harder for inexperience, untested drivers to get a licence as it would somehow, in your wild imagination, restrict other people from rightfully driving too. Perhaps it WOULD stop those who SHOULDN'T be driving anyway.

It sounds absolutely ridiculous, but applies in the exact same way. Perhaps you will see why others see you (Americans who support no change in gun ownership laws)a s so freakin' stupid for being so defensive against making sure people are properly cleared to own guns (never gonna happen, one can't change an American mind once it's been programmed for him).

"Intrusive and controlling programs?" What the hell are you even on about now?

GUN SHOP: 'You have to wait 45 days for us to conduct proper security checks and accept your permit application.'

AMERICAN CITIZEN: "OMG, how controlling and intrusive! Why can't I just buy a gun now? I REEEEEEALLY need it today, not next month! I have to have it NOW! My Constitutional rights said there would be no delay for proper security checks...oh, they didn't? well anyway, I still must have one now!"

The guy would sound worse than a 8 year old hoping he can get a PS3 because it's in a sale flyer.

Certainly you are having a laff because nobody, who can live a day without forgetting to breathe, would utter such garbage.

So, did you actually have any relevant comments toward what I said besides a bunch of arguments against what WASN'T said?

Were bought at top dollar (We don't have 5000 gun shows a year to get a better deal) and I waited 45 days for clearance, actually it was a bit longer than 45 days but around that anyway.
SO WHAT??????

When I bought the guns and went to register them, I did not expect to go for a coffee and come back to pick them up. I bought them in the winter for summer camping, a bit of range shooting, protection when I lived in Port Hardy and went into the mountains for days/weeks on end.

It wasn't a spur of the moment decision, it was a planned purchase and I expected to be FULLY screened and properly checked, as I would HOPE all others were too. I EXPECT it to take time! For a nation so deeply in LOVE with their guns and emotionally attached to the rights to own them, I just can't fathom how a proper security and background check, with a little down time in between would raise ANY concerns.

In fact as Americans always claim to be so responsible with ownership, why are they so IRRESPONSIBLE when it comes to ownership too?

It's clearly stubbornness and ignorance.

Just like the people in line in front of me when I was at Target in Cali last month, they were arguing for ages with cashier, store manager and eventually security that, because something was buy one get one free, that they were "entitled" to ONE at half price. They said "it's the exact same thing!" erm, no it isn't if you understand stock rotation. The latter does not benefit the store at all, which is the entire purpose to the offer.

The case is, I want it and I am American so that means I can HAVE it and, if you won't GIVE it to me, I will TAKE IT and there's nothing you can do about it because I am entitled to it.

STUBBORNNESS AND IGNORANCE, all in one.

Let me know when that comes to pass. I'm going to open a training academy across the line, talk about a bottomless market!!!
Ka-fricken' CHING!!

Americans are not smart in their near religious attachment to guns. I don't disagree with the stubborn and ignorant characterizations. 45 days doesn't seem an unrealistic time to wait, not to me. I'd actually favor a ban on civilian owned semiautomatic rifles. But that's only me.

You won't get anywhere in policy if your plan begins, "Step 1: stop being stubborn and ignorant. Step 2:..." The polity just isn't ready for a lot of things that make sense.

Of course, a lot of things that seem like a response to tragic mass killings, as Adam Lanza, are only reflexes without much analysis behind them. The kid was nuts, and wanted to make a point before killing himself, and he did kill himself after doing in 26 others. He could have done just as much damage just as quickly with a semiautomatic pistol as with the weapon he did use. I don't think there's any good reason for a civilian to own an assault weapon, and whatever good banning them might do, it wouldn't solve the Adam Lanza issue.

Suggesting a ban on ANYTHING in the US is ineffective. You could ban something that nobody wanted, liked or used, they would still be up at arms over your banning something. It seems that many Americans feel they lived in a world of perfection, until Bush came along, or Clinton, or Obama or whomever.

So many Americans attribute any problems to OTHER PEOPLE'S choice of president, if it weren't for "liberal weenies" for example, everything would be prefect in the US.

I think that if more Americans were able to view society and people without the political blinders on, your lives would be so much easier and your nation far more harmonious. However, hell would have gone through three ice ages before one side admits the other may be correct, that the Constitution and American rights might need a little copy checking, that America might actually learn something by looking at those who have already imposed change and see a better future for it.

But like I said, it would take hell freezing over more than once for any action to even become remotely possible, again, due to the stubborn ignorance of those who refuse even the idea of change.

Thank god not everyone sees things that way, otherwise you'd all be trying to figure out how to make Windows ME a more stable enterprise platform still.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/five-hurt-by-accidental-shots-at-us-gun-rallies/story-e6frg6n6-1226557708298

That's of course if you can read the link.

Every one of those instances should not have occurred if the people handling the weapons had even the most basic understanding of what it is that they where doing.

The worst however is that a Gun Dealer removed a Magazine from a Pistol and then without clearing the breach pulled the trigger and then wondered why it went Bang. That is inexcusable no matter what the person was told unless you can see light down the barrel through the breach it's loaded always loaded and the safety is in the Off Position. Doesn't matter who you are that is basic safety with any firearm.

The Darwin Award should go to the guy taking a Shot Gun to sell and shooting several people when he was asked to remove the firearm from its case and undoing the zip caused it to discharge. Not only was it loaded which there is no excuse for to begin with and that the safety was not set but he handled the weapon so roughly while undoing the zip that it discharged.

Those 3 are perfect examples why Gun Control is a Necessity, there are far too many Idiots with firearms in their hands shooting each other without intent. Unfortunately these people remove others from the Gene Pool never themselves and they carry on about their God Given Right to carry a Firearm.

They are Dangerous and need limiting and what's wrong with trying to protect people from others stupidity? You loose an eye when your shot accidentally anywhere no matter what you still don't have the use of that eye any more and it makes no difference if the person who was responsible for shooting you meant it or not. Of course the lucky ones die outright and don't have to put up with the results of the foolishness of others but even that has a Massive Cost to Society which they simply can not afford.

This is what I don't understand it's perfectly acceptable to Limit Motor Vehicle use but not firearm ownership. One can not be carried around easily and accidentally used where as the other can and it's considered as unacceptable to place any limits on these peoples stupidity. You may as well allow Free Rein with everything and then wonder why you go extinct. At least that way you are doing less harm to the remainder who are not directly involved in your arguments.

Col

ALL of the following are the comments of aidemzo_adanac

----------------------

Disclaimer: I am not stating a personal position either way.....

Of course your Constitution was written for an 18th century society.

it would be nice to have a healthy debate without right vs left mudslinging as that is what I see as clouding the path.

I just don't like cowboys and gun toting clowns that are so ignorant and irresponsible that they can't recognize the problem beyond whining about the left wing in the process.

Disclaimer: I am not stating a personal position either way..

It's clearly stubbornness and ignorance.

it would be nice to have a healthy debate without .. mudslinging as that is what I see as clouding the path.

What makes YOUR warped mindset and disregard for American lives any different than the mindset of a criminal who also disregards American lives? He's not a nutcase, in HIS mind, either.

Disclaimer: I am not stating a personal position either way..

Face it, America has a serious problem. A problem not duplicated anywhere else on the planet.

it would be nice to have a healthy debate without .. mudslinging as that is what I see as clouding the path.

The case is, I want it and I am American so that means I can HAVE it and, if you won't GIVE it to me, I will TAKE IT and there's nothing you can do about it because I am entitled to it.

Disclaimer: I am not stating a personal position either way.. it would be nice to have a healthy debate without .. mudslinging as that is what I see as clouding the path.

In fact as Americans always claim to be so responsible with ownership, why are they so IRRESPONSIBLE when it comes to ownership too?

---------------------- End of comments by aidemzo_adanac ----------------------

I'm guessing that I'll be accused of taking these things out of context. Even if I am, the point remains.

Please explain.

'Cause I didn't get the point either. Yes, a_a said those things. We've read them in his posts above. What's the point of reposting them?

I know you much better than that; it just doesn't apply to you. So perhaps you'll try again. If you still missed the point(s), I guess I didn't make it well enough to appeal to the broader TR audience.

Then again, maybe I'm mistaken in my assumption that I know you that well (cyberly speaking, that is), and the message above does apply. I just don't know; but I can live with that.

P.S. Cyberly speaking?

When I offered the disclaimer, it was because I saw another left vs right BS session in the making. In fact, the disclaimer was included specifically for Max as I knew he would pick apart any comment I made and try to turn the discussion into my making a personal attack on America thing, it's really old now.

The point of my disclaimer was to outline that I have not taken a political side in the matter. Otherwise it would be a problem that I have a political view and am AntiRepublican.

Opinions, whether left or right, are always encouraged, from myself anyway. In this case, I didn't see any Left vs Right at all, I have't actually thought what political side was behind any of the replies either, it's just about people's personal opinions.

No big deal, I'm so used to it. It's expected in most cases, in fact, just the other day, I was waiting for those exact comments to come up.

I don't think there are two other TR members who've exchanged more messages, or inspired more discussion than you and me. I know you like the back of my hand; and I'm sure you know me in a similar manner. How could it possibly be any other way after more than ten years? (Ten years? We're both idiots, by the way!)

Having said that, you have NEVER admitted that it was you who was off base; that it was you who were wrong; that is was you who were out of line; that it was you who was being hypocritical; that it was you who needed to be called to task. Nope, you are always the final word on all things. You are always right; you are never wrong. And anyone who opposes, or otherwise disagrees with you is wrong.

What else is new?

You posted your message exactly as I knew you would. (Yawn)

Aidemzo says "Disclaimer: I am not stating a personal position either way.." and then throughout the thread continues to state his personal positions.

AV

Well maybe he only meant that in those specific posts, and the rest he intended personal opinion.

Besides, everything is personal opinion.
If I say the world is round, that's just my opinion. I just happen to have a lot of facts backing my opinion.

By definition, an opinion has no facts to support it.

Have you ever read Mark Twain? I have a lot, but I'll refrain from sharing one of his Twainisms - one which is most appropriate in this case.

P.S. Edit (because I'm here to help) One can certainly consider a fact, or any number of facts, while forming an opinion. But the fact is, people are entitled to form different opinions; but those same people are never entitled to their own facts. Facts are universal. Opinions are personal. And all too often around here, people confuse the two.

Have you ever read Mark Twain? I have a lot, but I'll refrain from sharing one of his Twainisms - one which is most appropriate in this case.

Now that was an insult, although you probably didn't know it. But a mild-mannered insult, to be sure. Again, intended to make a point - but only to those who "get it".

Still working on Game of thrones. I only read when I am releasing the mud sharks so it takes me a bit of time to get through a book.

That way you can get through more than one page. Just don't let the tears smudge the ink.

the spirit with which Aidemzo claims he began this conversation has begun to take a condescending tone to all who disagree with his viewpoints on the subject. To be fair, I commend him on his ability thus far in maintaining a relatively even temperament. However, that commendation is only measured against my own shortcomings in that area.
Face it. This is a touchy subject. I suspect that there are an abundance of people on this forum that have elected to remain silent simply due to the emotional charge it provokes in so many. So while the majority of outspoken members here seem to weigh in favor of most of the views posted thus far regarding some measure of control, I am confident that there is a significant number of people reflecting the diametrically opposing view most of you have. Sadly, -and I do not exclude myself from the following- few could spell it out better than Max has thus far. If one reads what he has to say objectively there is much wisdom in what he speaks.
Further, while those of you in other countries comment this and that with regard to Americans in the stereotypical fashion this always seems to digress to, the simple fact of the matter is that yours is a view perceived through dark shades.
We Americans are not unaware of the way government sets up pretexts for what it wishes to accomplish. We have observed it within our own and we have observed it likewise in the countries you reside in. Laws and regulations are enacted in order to keep the people safe. They are done so with a specific target in mind. The people allow their passing in order to keep them safe from whatever threat is posed by the targets of such legislation. Yet, invariably the government begins using the new law in a far broader range than it was ever intended. And they do so within moments of the laws enactment.
So, while all of you in other countries, especially those having comparatively stricter gun control, make claims regarding how much safer your country is than ours. We just do not see it. Not in the news nor in statistics. Not having the ability to purchase and own firearms, it is easy to acquiesce to the need for others to be bound by the same restraints you have learned to live with. You, as outsiders make ridiculous claims of what you feel must be the reality here with regards to the personal safety of American citizens. Yet, in doing so your own suggestions proffered in avenues we might pursue to create a safer environment for us and our families is to become like you. Again, I (we) fail to see yours as any shining example of the way things could be. Moreover, almost without exception we perceive quite the opposite.
Statistics can be spun in any direction to suit the given agenda of the one making the citations may desire. Not that they do not have a valid purpose. More often than not, one must be wary of accepting them on face value as portrayed.
On the subject of safety, some of the quotes here regarding the laws of their country concerning when and where one is able to protect themselves or their families and to what extent just floor me with wonderment. How such is portrayed so calmly, in a matter of fact fashion with no apparent concern whatsoever is bewildering to me. Sure I want to make every effort to disarm a man in my own home who happens to be wielding a knife, baseball bat, machete or whatever in a threatening manner to my family with my bare hands. Yeah that's the typical train of thought I think most people would have. PERHAPS ON PLUTO! Or no wait! I should simply hope the phone lines haven't been cut and call 911. Then wait the 15 minutes or so for the cops to get here, determine it may be a hostage situation and consume another hour and a half or more assembling the HRT. That really makes you feel safe? For real? Perhaps Americans are indeed different from the rest of the world. Don't worry we will put these differences aside the next time you need to be freed from the totalitarian regime that your complacency has fostered. We will go and die on your land. If we haven't already died defending the ability to do so here on our own. After all, some things are worth dying for. And ours (or your) liberty is one thing we have always considered to be one of those things.
You see, most Americans simply do not trust in -nor do we perceive it to be a primary function of- our federal government to keep us safe. This is not to say we invite anarchy. Quite simply, by design, the larger burden of responsibility to that end lies with the lower branches of government. Federal laws and rules and the enforcement of such was never meant to supersede states' laws, but to support them as written in our Constitution. We as Americans are taught in our history and reminded daily of the unceasing vigilance necessarily maintained in order for our children and grandchildren to enjoy the same liberty we have. Complacency is the enemy.
While on the subject, and I suppose I must admit I have drawn the proverbial line in the sand so to speak, and for that I apologize, nevertheless, I am compelled to query those of you outside the USA as to where in the recent past the shift occurred in the sentiments of the rest of the world toward the American people? Does anyone know? Please do enlighten us. I mean I have my own ideas of when, where and why. But I would like to hear it firsthand.
Signed,

Not a clown.

Thank you.

is in fact less than fifty years old?
Reagan passed a gun control law, and the NRA backed him up.

Also, to say that outsiders automatically view things through dark shades is interesting: You people are part of what amounts to a Domestic Altercation.
In those instances, the participants are seldom objective observers.

The outside view of the US began to tip when the US Republican party was suborned by religious nuts. It became clear that the US was not following the same road to increasing secularity and equality, but rather an odd road leading to increased corporate power AND increased superstition.
As such, everybody looks at you warily. You are powerful and erratic. Your policies look more to unproved principles than to what works, and you enforce them unilaterally.

You're lucky to have even the dwindling number of friends that you do, and I say this with regret. I would like to like you, but your choices are irrational.

"The outside view of the US began to tip when the US Republican party was suborned by religious nuts."

While you're conducting history lessons, the US Republican party wasn't suborned by religious nuts. The party began actively seeking social conservatives during the second Nixon campaign, leveraging Southerners' disdain for integration, official Catholic opposition to the Roe v. Wade abortion decision, and fear of a McGovern presidency. That's when the party first began to de-emphasis on fiscal conservatism, although it didn't lose it's way completely until the Bush II era.

It went out and gathered those nuts on its own.

Barry Goldwater said it quite clearly:

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)

Granted, those are from after the point you mention, so it may be they realized too late the trojan horse they had hauled into their camp.

He's one of my mentors. I've never met the man, mind you, but he's a mentor nonetheless.

I find it interesting that you use a past conservative to discredit some of today's flavor of conservatives - and you're a guy who espouses existing democratic-socialist principles and policies in your own country, and call yourself a conservative.

No wonder people are so confused about titles, names, and descriptions that are being thrown around.

P.S. The Internet is a dangerous thing, in that it gives people like you a false sense of enlightenment; it makes you think you know what you're talking about, when, in fact, in many cases, you're completely clueless.

No wonder people are so confused about titles, names, and descriptions that are being thrown around.

That's because those titles, names, and descriptions don't have the same meanings they did 50 years ago. They don't even have the same meanings in California as they do in Iowa, Alabama, Canada, England, or Finland. And today, there are many with the arrogance to assume they are the arbiters of what does and does not fit in those labels and who is and isn't entitled.

"Conservative" is no longer a valid definition for the Republican Party, nor is it a valid definition for the political right. There is nothing conservative about destroying the environment in search of the almighty dollar. There is nothing conservative about dismissing scientific findings outright because you disagree with what they tell you. There is nothing conservative in forcing others to comply with your religious views. There is nothing conservative in condemning others because their opinions differ from yours.

The "conservatives" in today's Republican party are no less radical than any member of the Black Panthers or Weather Underground ever was. They say they are in favor of less intrusive government, fiscal responsibility, and the American worker, but when push comes to shove, it's just the opposite. They want government to regulate who people can love and women's health options. They won't raise taxes to help reduce the deficit, and refuse to consider cutting subsidies for the most profitable corporations in the world. Their anti-union stance and desire to cut social programs are the proof they don't give a flying shot at a rolling doughnut about the average American.

Today's Republican Party has become a perverted shadow of what it was 50 years ago, holding positions closer to those of the John Birch Society or Ku Klux Klan. Were Barry Goldwater alive today, I don't doubt he would repudiate the Republican Party's positions and platform in the harshest words possible.

For centuries, politicians have been considered as liars and hypocrites. Today's Republicans seem determined to become the poster children.

If a liberal policy turns out to cost-efficiently achieve a goal, it may very well become a conservative policy. If it works, that's more important than theory and dogma.
Conservativism is pragmatic, not idealistic.

You're an idiot - or a git, if you prefer. (Pragmatic, my a$$)

For those who haven't noticed, "pragmatic" is the new buzz-word for this disingenuous crowd.

when actual arguments run out...
You didn't have to admit to losing, Max. You could've just pretended not to notice my post

You are a dishonest and disingenuous supporter of a socialist-democratic society, principles, and government which forces it on people. You can call yourself an avocado, for all I care, as rational for supporting it. You're fooling no one - except maybe yourself. And you're bringing your crap to my shores, pushing your values on America - the very thing America is being criticized for doing in other places. So add hypocrite to the things that describe you - and p****, of course.

Maybe Ansu's society is working better than yours and has a more "conservative " and less radical approach to change. Why don't you look up the word "conservative" in a dictionary to see if you have your head around it's real meaning.

According to statistics, anyway.

I'm intrigued by the attitude that comes across from your post and other posts in the gun-laws thread. You talk of "disarm a man in my own home who happens to be wielding a knife, baseball bat, machete or whatever in a threatening manner to my family", another US poster talked of "faked" accidents to draw people out of their houses for robbery.

This is alien and scary and that is perhaps why those of us who aren't from the US have the attitude that we have. We may not BE safer (we are, though) but we perceive ourselves so to be and for that reason we don't feel the need for guns. You live your life in fear and the anticipation of voilent crime and arm yourself accordingly and then ignore the fact that one million people have died by guns, homicides or accidents or suicides, in the last twenty five years in your country. That's a few more, calculated per capita, than in the same period in the UK. (British understatement...)

You asked about anti-American feeling. That comes in two flavours, jealousy of your size, power and success (which makes you feel good, I guess) and intellectual. So, just as an aside and to set the tone little differently. YOU are responsible for this rant on my intellectual reasons for my annoyance with the US as a country...

"We will go and die on your land."

Patronising git. I read that and I nearly punched the screen. Push off and keep out of our affairs and the affairs of other sovereign countries. No. I mean it. Get any troops you have out of everywhere. Now. And stay out.

Stop dragging us into your wars and, when you do, have a bloody plan! We're your allies, consult us.

Try and do something about your wasteful consumption of resources. You're too fat, your car engines are too big and inefficient.

Stop your protectionist stance on trade issues such as steel and agriculture.

Stop supporting objectionable regimes

Stop rendition, waterboarding (it's torture) and shut Guantanamo. While you're at it, give it back to Cuba. (Yes, Spain can have Gibraltar back if they get out of Morocco).

Get your nutty Christian sects under a bit of control. Some of them are scarier than fundamental Muslims.

You have capital punishment. It's barbaric. You have more people locked up in jails that China. Sort it out.

For the richest country in the world you have woeful infant mortality child poverty, longevity, illiteracy and homeless figures. Fix the first two, if nothing else. The US is a very good country to be rich in, a bad country to be poor in. You may suggest suggesting that this kind of "freedom" is something to which the world should aspire but stop actively attempting to export this. It doesn't work and nobody wants it.

When the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty was signed, among the few non-signatories were Iraq, North Korea, Libya, China, Russia - and the United States. This is typical...

And for pity's sake, stop this garbage about US freedom and democracy. There is a very self-gratifying kind of righteousness from US politicians when speaking about the US and some of it can be seen in your post, above. We don't like it. It's not true. It sets our collective teeth on edge.

Stop talking about WWI and WWII. Now. Are you aware that "Saving Private Ryan" was based on a true story of a British expedition to rescue British prisoners. THAT is why when Americans talk of WWII we get annoyed with you. RUSSIA won WWII in Europe with our help and, eventually, yours. But thank you for the cheap planes and stuff that we go via lend-lease. That helped.

The USA claims to be, in absolute terms, the world's biggest giver and this is true. However, as a proportion of its wealth the USA gives least.

Your unconditional support for Israel.

I could go on for a while but I'll stop now and just add one request.

Put some spaces in your damn posts!

To put some reality in, here. I don't hate the USA. Most people don't. We see it as imperfect, sometimes as an oppressor, sometimes a humanitarian country, often wrong, often right. Much of the anti-americanism is based on misconceptions. Most of it has arisen during the Bush Presidence.

Trust me, a hundred years ago, we were hated (and with much better reasons than any hatred of the US). We did some seriously bad stuff during the days of Empire and we're forever apologising about it.

It's your government. It shows no humility, no modesty whatsoever. Those of us who have met Americans, like Americans but we judge you by your government and, I think, by Hollywood. So damned SMUG.