Watercooler

Constitutional Rights vs Voice of the People

Tags:
+
1 Votes
Locked

Constitutional Rights vs Voice of the People

aidemzo_adanac
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 ****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.
  • +
    1 Votes
    BFilmFan

    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.

    +
    2 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    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?

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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 **** 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.

    +
    1 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

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

    +
    1 Votes
    BFilmFan

    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.

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

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

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    stick around for as long as I have, and you won't be confused... oh, wait. No, it just gets worse, really :^0

    +
    1 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    :^0

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    BFilmFan

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Monarchy was totalitarian totality: It affected every view of every aspect of life.
    Then you got rid of the kings, but those totalitarian views did not change overnight, it took many conflicts and many majority wins to slowly iron those monarchic wrinkles out of your fabric.

    +
    2 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    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...

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Nick if or when you have time, elaborate, I see where you are going and it's a really good perspective but needs more to contextualize it.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

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

    +
    2 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

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

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

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

    +
    1 Votes
    Slayer_

    That's all.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    1 Votes
    Slayer_

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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 **** 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.

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Now I'm cleaning my monitor !

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

    Priceless!

    +
    0 Votes
    SmartAceW0LF

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    As you know, his "Jefferson Lies" turned out to be aptly named: they turned out to be a collection of David Barton's own lies about Jefferson.

    In that day and age, before the discovery of Evolution, it took a lot of guts and mental rigor to arrive at a non-theistic conclusion. If you look closer, I did not equate religiosity with idiocy, but rather I said their stance on the god stuff showed their mental acuity.

    +
    1 Votes
    Slayer_

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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, **** 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.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    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?

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    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.

    +
    2 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    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.

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    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?

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

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

    /sarcasm

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Not always. You are allowed to use reasonable force, whatever force is required in order to remove the threat from your home. If the intruder is not armed, you cannot shoot him/her. If the intruder is armed and you have reason to fear for your own or other family members lives, you can shoot the intruder, IF no other means would have stopped the threat.

    When I was a security foreman I ran into these issues all the time, almost nightly actually. No matter how well trained guards were, some drunk concert or game attendee would start the excessive violence claims with police. Of course, with cameras everywhere, it was easy to prove either way. The trick is removal of the threat.

    If someone comes at you with a knife and you grab it and stab him with it, you can face assault charges. If someone comes at you with a knife, you grab it and pin him to the ground, you are okay.

    The key is grabbing the knife. Once you have it, he is unarmed and you have removed the threat.

    So if some guy has a gun pointed at you, the American solution would be to shoot before he did. By Canadian law that would ALMOST be acceptable but not always due to grey area.

    If some guy in Canada has a gun pointed at you and you can safely flee, you must do so, run like a little rabbit.

    The castle doctrine in the US is becoming harder and harder to stand/hide behind. That's when you can shoot anyone on your property. There have been cases where the intruder fled the home and was shot while leaving. If he has his back to the shooter and is leaving, the Castle doctrine no longer applies and you are the assailant.

    As more old school Americans die and a more aware generation grows older, there is greater support for more realistic measures than just shoot first and ask questions later. It's gonna take a few decade yet, but American society will come around to the mindset shared by other free nations one day. How bad it will be by then, I don't really know though.

    +
    2 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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. .

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "... 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. :-)

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ..... 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.

    +
    1 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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!"

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    So logically she was a witch.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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!

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    It was 100 years removed from reality / accuracy / truthfulness / etc.

    and/or

    It was one (of many) of the very things that happened under the rule of King (whomever) of England (George in the late 18th Century, I don't know in the 17th), and only lends to illustrate what led to the break from England and the creation of the United States Republic.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

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

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    1 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

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

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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 **** 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.

    +
    0 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    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?

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    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.

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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 **** 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?

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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!!

    +
    0 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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, **** 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 **** 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.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    The Centers for Disease Control used to track a variety of statistics regarding death by firearms. Several years ago Congress, under pressure from the usual suspects, forbade them from doing so. I believe allowing them to resume doing so is one of the proposals from VP Biden's study group.

    +
    1 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    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. :^0

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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.

    +
    1 Votes
    Slayer_

    Please explain.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    '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?

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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?

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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)

    +
    3 Votes
    AV .

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

    AV

    +
    0 Votes

    Oh

    Slayer_

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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".

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

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

    +
    3 Votes
    SmartAceW0LF

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "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 ******** 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.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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.

    +
    2 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    when actual arguments run out...
    You didn't have to admit to losing, Max. You could've just pretended not to notice my post :^0

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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.

    +
    1 Votes

    Max

    j-mart

    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.

    +
    3 Votes
    neilb@uk

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I enjoyed it thoroughly. Thank you. I even agree with much of it. I would post a reply specific to your fine rant, but since it wasn't directed at me, I'll resist the urge. I'll wait for another one aimed at me. (I have a great idea for a new twist to the GW/CC thing. Perfect rant material.)

    By the way (and you did touch on this), would you confirm (or deny if you disagree) for the other non-Americans who frequent these threads, that there are really two Americas. There's the one they see on their television or computer screens, and then there's the real one - you know, the one you've seen and experienced with your own eyes. I read them describe things and people that I've never seen or experienced.

    I realize that I'm just an ignorant country bumpkin who just fell off a turnip truck in the middle of some survivorlists zone who stays glued to FOX News, but you'd think I would have seen at least a smidgen of what they describe, considering all my years here.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    I was careful to end my piece on a (relatively) conciliatory note, making the point completly that I hold the US government and their servants responsible for most of the more justifiable anti-American feeling that seems to abound at the moment. Hollywood must also shoulder some of the blame for their portrayal of your society.

    But I love the country and the only reason that I'm not holidaying in the US these days is that I take my old mum and, at 88, she isn't up to much air travel these days so if we can't drive there, we don't go. One day I'll make it to Colorado! Steak is on the menu.

    Jealousy coupled with ignorance accounts for a lot of less justifiable anti-American feeling too. There is plenty of ignorance in the UK these days.

    Using the US as a scapegoat for the failings within their society is quite common and totally unjustifiable. Probably.

    +
    2 Votes
    SmartAceW0LF

    Thank you sir! I agree with most of what you say here. And furthermore, you confirm my suspicions about when the major tide turned. All of that said, your problem is what you perceive the American people to be, due in most part because of what we continue to support within our politics. And this is the CRUX of the matter.

    With a government hellbent on business as usual as you describe above, would YOU want to submit YOUR last ditch hope of ever recovering the dream it was designed to be? As for me, not no but **** NO!

    Before proceeding further, allow me to make one thing abundantly clear. There is not a single firearm nor bullet anywhere in or near my home. Hasn't been since before I went and was released from Federal Prison. Nothing to hide here. Just so everything is ON the table and no one gets surprised here, now you know. To many that will automatically mean that anything I have to say about this subject is of no merit. If that is you -meaning anyone reading this- then kiss my a$$ and move on back into your sandhole.

    I lived the better portion of my life as an outlaw. So, I am a late bloomer into this subject. Yes, I too rode high on the heels of my forebears comfortable in the lifestyle they fought and died to preserve. Shame on me I know. All I can say is better late than never. No sooner than I took an interest, the landslide began.

    The way I see it, our political system is broken. We have what is now either a neo-conservative party (meaning any and everything the term defines) and then on the other end we have a party that chooses to represent the opposite of any and everything the new Republican Party endorses. I'm sure anyone can see the epic failure in that picture. And to either of the two parties, you are either with us or against us. No middle ground. Common sense be damned!

    In reality, it would seem that life as we know it has been sold out to the highest bidder by the clowns we have running things in Washington. Who was the highest bidder? Any guesses? You can bet it was one of several corporations. Indeed, a good portion of it was bartered to Halliburton, but it was no single entity. Corporate America seems to have won it's desires.

    The fact is, "they" continue to parade a group of clowns before us to vote on, none of which seems to amount to a hill of beans in effecting change. Meanwhile, "they" (there's that word again. More on this later) continue to polarize and divide the American people by their ongoing agenda of making all of us believe you are one or the other. This is all BS and allows them to sink us deeper in the muck they are creating.

    We and our way of life are in trouble here. The major trouble we have on the forefront has nothing to do with guns. It has everything to do with us still having them though. I do believe that when the guns owned by the people are removed from the equation, we will likely be doomed to the most oppressive government the world has ever known.

    All in all I enjoyed your post Neil. Thank you. The only thing I took personally was the line about more spaces. Kindly note the addition of them. As for the rest of your post, these are all valid points. I can not take them personally as though I were responsible first-hand for them. However, as an American Citizen, I must accept responsibility for them. To sum it up, it would seem that you are as aggravated with this countries' governmental policies as I am myself. When they come for everyones' firearms, I will be holed up with some good friends of mine (mostly members of the various constabulary offices within our government) who own plenty. Better to die standing on your feet than to live on your knees.

    We all need your prayers. If you don't believe in God, we still need your good wishes for us. (Belief in God or not, I personally believe in their power as well.) You were with us pre-911. Please remain that way. We are trying to rein it all back in. Please do trust in us and support us through this. Because if we fail, the same will likely come to your shores sooner than later. We had no way of knowing your good will and support for us regarding 911 would be "prostituted" (is that even a word?) the way it was.

    Good reading for anyone who desires to learn more of the way our political parties weild or misue their power and influence. Both of these are very timely with regard to this conversation.

    Google the following terms. Good Riddance Attention ***** and then How Do You Kill Eleven Million People?

    And finally, as promised, more on "they". I find my favorite definition for the term -and it most assuredly applies here- from within the old Sam Peckinpah movie, The Wild Bunch. The group had just robbed a train and were dividing the spoils when they realised they had been setup and ended up with a bunch of washers instead of coins. One asked at some point within the conversation, "Who the **** is 'they'?" The reply came from the least of their ranks thusly. "Who the **** is they? Why they's as plain as fancy they! Tied a tin can to your tail! Marched ya right in and right back out again, left you with a hand full of holes, a thumb up your a-- and a big grin to pass the time of day with! That's who they is!" Just a little sad humor there.

    Again, thanks Neil. Now we're talking.

    edited to provide a way to finish the google terms that wouldn't be censored. Now if you will excuse me, someone claiming to be ATF or something or other is at the door.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    It is not illegal.
    For reals.

    However, since we don't need them, we have not bothered to make it easy or quick nor has there been a feeling that advertisements for guns is anything else than appalling.

    Now, granted, you have a big crime problem, you have a horribly backfiring war on drugs and a horribly backfiring neglected public school system, and a horribly backfiring social inequality problem.
    So, yeah, in some areas people might actually need handguns to protect themselves from Meth Zombies, and I think that's a valid concern.

    What I have a problem with is the NRA stance that guns are somehow a necessary or sufficient criterion for personal safety. They are neither, they can be one way, but they are only a poor treatment for the symptom, and the whole debate is a distraction from the root causes.

    Just fix the root causes already. Trash the prison industry, get rid of the drug war, splash out on public school reform (as you probably know, the world's best school system is 100,0% publicly funded).

    +
    1 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    SAKO. I owned two of them. They were beautifully styled, flawlessly engineered, and accurate. Astonishingly accurate. Could group five shots in less than an inch at 100 yards with Norma ammunition. Alas, I sold them to pay off two obstetricians. I own no guns now. When I take up target shooting again, some day, it'll be with a Finnish firearm.

    +
    1 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    The NRA talks about assault rifles as though they are useful for home defense. They talk about all guns as though their primary justification is defense of the home. They are dishonest.

    If you're going to defend your home, you need something that is handy indoors. You need something reliable that won't malfunction, and something you can operate when you're scared to death. You don't want bullets that will travel through three walls and wound your neighbor, sleeping in the next house. You want a revolver, preferably a .38 special. That was the standard police equipment across America for 70 years, and it did very well. It has six rounds, and all you have to do is pull the trigger to get the next one, a feat probably within the remaining skills of a panic-stricken homeowner. There are no jams, no safety, and if there is a misfire, you just pull the trigger again. It takes a simple, deliberate action to fire, and accidental firings from dropping the weapon or picking it up wrong are impossible. You don't need 15 rounds, or magnum calibers, to do the job; even meth zombies tend to go down with the first hit. It's pretty easy to get off a second quickly, if your zombie needs an extra flourish.

    Possibly, if you're defending a farm and you have to investigate something in the barn, a shotgun is desirable. But once you go through a doorway, the longer barrel can be grabbed; and once you're inside, walking through narrow spaces, the long arm becomes a problem to bring to action. The revolver is best, for the amateur without professional combat training.

    AR-15s are useful for reliving your days as a young fella in the army, trying to recapture the spirit you had when you and all your friends weighed so much less. And, in case the U.N. black helicopters come swooping in stocked with European liberals who want to burn your bible and make you gay-marry your dog, why, that's when you'd want to grab your AR-15 and defend your way of life. Because assault-style weapons are military weapons, made for fighting military formations, not for target work or hunting or home defense. They're ideal for shooting National Guardsmen, and not much else.

    The gun industry likes them because they are so much more profitable, per unit, than conventional rifles and shotguns. Crackpot gun lovers like them because they play into a military-style apocalypse vision, and crackpots love weird conspiracy-powered end-of-civilization set piece drama. And the NRA likes them for both of those reasons, for keeping the money flowing and the excitement high.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    The local sheriff was on a radio call-in program the other day. He said for home protection, he prefers a shotgun. Accuracy isn't an issue, and you don't worry as much about rounds going through the walls into the kids' bedrooms. He went with a revolver second, listing many of your reasons. He didn't see much value in rifles or semi-auto handguns for home defense.

    I wouldn't go against too many National Guardsmen with an AR-15. We had full-auto M-16s, M-60s, SAWs, and M-203 grenade launchers, and I'm sure the hardware has only improved since I got out a decade ago. You'll have some short-term success, so as long as that's your only goal...

    If I was into the end of the world conspiracy stuff, I'd be looking for whatever used the most common ammo. Without that, all you have is an expensive club, and a cumbersome one at that.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    The tone of your posts is what really confuses we Europeans. I have never, until now, ever contemplated "the best weapon for home protection". OK, I don't live in a particularly bad part of London but there are some pretty "iffy" areas a few miles away. I have decided to get myself a recording of a pump-action shotgun being cocked followed by a creepy satanic laugh. That should do it. But on the down-side, it won't work against zombies.

    I do know some peope who tell me they have a baseball bat under the bed but all I can ask when they say that is "Why don't you have a cricket bat? What's wrong with an indigenous sport? It's not that you're ever going to have to use it." Although, if you do, a proper stroke with a cricket bat takes a lot more skill. Either are good against zombies.

    I checked up and it seems that around 9% of Brits, most of whom are female, live alone or have been burgled before, "don't feel safe in their own home" and a quarter of householders keep a baseball bat, heavy flashlight or walking stick "just in case". Although most keep it by their front door which strikes me a a pretty dumb thing to do. It's reckoned that over 90% of baseball bat sales in the UK are for protection against intruders. Or zombies.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    First you would have to head shot them hard enough to destroy their brains.
    And that means you have to get close, and your probably going to get covered in blood, and then infected yourself.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    Personally, I don't own a firearm and can't see circumstances under which I would. I don't go places where I think one may be necessary, and I won't live where I think the possibility of my home being broken into is above average.

    I've had one home broken into in 31 years, and no one was home at the time. I suspect most criminals target unoccupied homes; if I was in that line of work, I certainly would.

    I have no objections to others owning a firearm for home defense. The sheriff's point was if that's your concern, get a weapon suited to the task. He thought an automatic rifle was a poor choice.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You've obviously never watched 'Shaun of the Dead'. It's my "defence against the zombie" bible! Should I ever be menaced by zombies, and I reckon I work with a few, I will take my expertise from those guys.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLquz4Iz-30

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Not once did I take a personal 'position'. I offered a lot of personal opinions on the comments that were shared but not once did I say I was for or against the Right to Bear Arms, whether I was focused on the Left or Right etc. Just my personal opinion on gun control laws and comments to others about the same.

    From the discussion you have read: What is my personal position on the title of the discussion?

    "Constitutional Rights vs Voice of the People"

    Have I stated what I feel toward that political question I initially asked? NOPE. Read into it what you will but that's not what was actually said.

    +
    2 Votes
    AV .

    But I'm sure its not with the cowboys and gun-toting clowns who defend the Constitution written for an 18th century society. Thats kind of a dead give away as to what your position is even though you didn't specifically say it.

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    cowboys and gun-toting clowns who defend the Constitution written for an 18th century society.

    Clearly they generally are right wing but that still doesn't state my position or beliefs. I actually lean a lot farther right than you would think.

    Point is, there are MANY right wing supporters who feel gun laws need to be refined and many right wing supporters who are not cowboys and gun-toting clowns who defend the Constitution written for an 18th century society.

    I was speaking of a certain, very extreme segment of the right wing. I am also against left wing radicals who protest for the sake of protest without knowing the true objectives behind a given project.

    Your conclusion is just an incorrect assumption. When I say "cowboys and gun-toting clowns who defend the Constitution written for an 18th century society", you automatically think I oppose Republicans, but that comment doesn't include most republicans at all.

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    Ok, that means to me that you're on the left. Am I wrong in that assumption? I know you can't be with the party that has gun-toting clowns and cowboys or you wouldn't refer to them like that. I don't think you've referred to the far left radicals as the bleeding heart, Krill-eating, save the Whales crowd, so apparently they're ok to you, even though they are extreme too. They're just misguided. Aww.

    Most Republicans, myself included, have a deep respect for the Constitution and will defend it. Its the framework on which this nation was built and is every bit as valid today as the day it was written. You may misunderstand the gun-toting clowns and cowboys, but they are up in arms that our second amendment right to own guns is being taken away. No one wants to see the horrendous crimes that have been committed with guns lately ever happen again, but the government's answer is to just ban assault weapons. Problem solved! That was done in the past and it didn't work and won't work now. Also, and this is why the gun-toting clowns and cowboys are so fired up, if the legislation passes, it will give the government more latitude to enact further laws to restrict legal gun ownership in this country. Its a gun grab by the government and thats why every gun store across the nation is packed with people buying guns and ammo.

    Legal gun owners in this country shouldn't be persecuted for the crimes of disturbed people that walk among us. THEY are the real problem. Here's an example. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/halloween-inspired-texas-teen-to-kill-mom-and-sister/ A teen steals his grandfather's gun and gets inspired by the movie Halloween to kill his mom and sister. He did it because they were rude and he felt suffocated by them. He only used the gun because he didn't want them to feel any pain. He might have used something else maybe if he had no gun. Should we ban Halloween the movie and the gun to prevent that from happening in the future? Would that help? No.

    We need to address the real problem and that's mental illness. We need to be talking about what we can do about those individuals instead of deciding which weapons we should ban. Every gun is an assault weapon in the wrong hands.

    I know I got a little sidetracked, but I wanted to shed some light on why the gun-toting clowns and cowboys are so upset. The government is going to use these horrendous crimes to chip away at our second amendment rights in the name of public safety, but its a false sense of security for everyone because the real problem is mental illness.

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    It's not perhaps an "only in America thing", but generally the rest of the western world have more reasonable right wings (because they have actual conservatives).
    The US only seems to have the Extreme Right and then a bunch of minarchists.

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Well, yes. I sit much more to the right of centre than the left, if that's a better explanation. I have referred to the extreme left as tree hugging people who protest for the sake of protesting. But I feel a need to save the whales and out environment too. I'm not opposed to every building constructed because it displaces rats and birds but I am for responsibility. One of my hero's is the great David Suzuki, many see him as a tree hugging fish lover, which he is not. He's a US trained scientist and supports sustainability by educating public on the realities of our actions, not some radical, chain yourself to a tree in protest kind of guy.

    Like i said, there are extremes on both sides, in the US the extremes are so pronounced that there is no middle ground to be shared and as a result either side meeting in the middle is seen as lowering their beliefs to compromise. I agree many left wing supporters are misguided and radical too. No need to say awww, I feel the same. But I don't see every effort to save wildlife or nature as being letfy, hippie sh*t. Just the same as I don't see every corporate maneuver as being healthy for us or the planet either.

    There is no question in my min at all that most Republicans don't see the Constitution for what it is but what it represents, it's as valid as the first copy of the bible. Which, to me, makes no sense from either perspective.

    I am all for defending your rights and not letting others impose on them, but we are talking common sense and human lives now. If your defense of your rights is jeopardizing others lives, there has to be middle ground found and some 'adjustment' made. As I have said though, there is no hope of common view or shared middle ground in a political system that forces people to go out of their way to be an absolute opposite in every possible way to each other.

    but they are up in arms that our second amendment right to own guns is being taken away.

    ALL of my comments here have been focused on stricter laws to legally obtain guns, I have said NOTHING AT ALL about taking away the right to own one. If you are an upstanding, red blooded American citizen then your rights are not impacted in any way shape or form. You can still own a gun, go to gun shows, show your guns off, shoot things with them, make yourself feel safe in your own home, whatever it is you feel you need to do to feel safe again in your free and most desirable nation.

    There is nothing in your Constitution that says you should be able to buy a gun without passing some checks first though. Right to bear arms does not stipulate a time frame. If you feel it does, then why is the current check okay and not proper checks and wait time to ensure that criminal charges aren't being processed in the system as you apply for ownership?

    " Its a gun grab by the government and thats why every gun store across the nation is packed with people buying guns and ammo."

    That's such a pathetic comment in every way. "quick, the government is taking away all of our guns and our rights!" I mean, seriously hilarious but rather sad at the same time. Only in America, I know, because Americans have freedoms nobody else would understand, freedoms to protect themselves from all the other free Americans trying to harm and steal from them.

    Yes, and then there are the thousands of government conspiracies, all the UFO's the government secretly stores and those pesky aliens that work at area 51, the Chinese setting to take over the world etc.
    Actually, shhh, there's a guy out front of our office wearing a black hat, I think he's in on it too!

    Legal gun owners ar enot being persecuted, nor having thei rrights removed. Gun CONTROL is gun CONTROL, not gun REMOVAL. Even if the government wanted to, they can't remove guns from American hands, it is impossible and anyone advising the president or congress already knows that. I have only ever mentioned gun CONTROL laws are tightened. Just as they are in Canada where we also have plenty of guns, legally owned by people with rights and freedoms, or the UK, or Australia, or Germany etc.

    Your absolutely ridiculous analogy using the movie Halloween is both far fetched and inapplicable to any comments I've made.

    "We need to address the real problem and that's mental illness."

    Very true, in fact you can add that to the list right after a longer waiting period before a gun permit is obtained, greater responsibility for ALL gun owners, an education for the rest etc.

    There are many MANY people who go on killing sprees that show absolutely no signs of mental illness, either before or even AFTER the killing spree, this is why most take their own lives too, they completely understand what they have done and what the repercussions are.

    I've studied criminal minds and criminal psychology at great length for many years, there is no 'formula' that you feel we need to identify and correct. Yes, there are those that are prone to end up that way, and many are left untreated and able to commit their crimes, but the vast majority are not diagnosed that way before or after their crime spree.

    So while I agree that focusing on mental illness is needed, it's also a cop out for completely sane people to commit heinous crimes and plead insanity. To even suggest that greater background checks is not as effective as identifying the more than 3 million 'known' psychopaths in the US, perhaps those mental illness checks need to start at your front door. Should BOTH be focused on more? Yes, why not? Oh, right, because if you had to wait an extra two weeks to legally obtain YOUR gun it would be imposing on YOUR right to shoot something, right now.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    That he ignored for himself, as he's slung mud throughout the discussion. But it's pointless arguing with him about it, because he'll simply deny it - even though it's there for all to see.

    Mudslinging, you see, is a matter of interpretation. He didn't sling mud, he'll rebut; it was only a hand full of dirt, or a snowball, or......

    Demeaning characterizations of others in his usual straw-man fashion is his way to hide his own mudslinging.

    I've seen it for too long from him - and his denials that he does it.

    Personally, I make no bones about mudslinging. It adds emphasis to the written word when voice inflections can't be used. People like a_a and Ansu do it in a sneaky and underhanded stealth mode. At least I own up to it and don't try to hide behind their word games.

    +
    0 Votes

    So

    aidemzo_adanac

    If I throw mud at both the right and the left, you only have an issue because I commented on the right?

    IN actuality, I didn't sling mud at the right, I specifically focused on a portion of the right wing and even then specifically on a certain mentality of SOME of the right wing, as I described also. The fact that I say the same about the radical leftists is irrelevant though I suppose.

    Why must you only see extreme right or left with no concept of what conservative thoughts are?

    You hid ebehind your own word games, you are famed for it, cryptic enough that you can skew it either way dependin gon reponses. No Max, I don't think you are that dumb as to not know what you are doing. Your posts are so carefully planned and posted, it's not funny. I don't know anyone around here who puts as much thought into an evasive and protective post that implies yet doesn't assert as much as you do.

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ..... you should try to see it with open eyes and mind, instead of their usual state.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    you insult me for trying to understand you.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    If you were offended by anything I said, you made the wrong choice. And if you think you deserve special treatment because you have difficulty understanding what I write, you don't. I sometimes have difficulty understanding what George Will writes, but I don't ask him to explain himself. I either try again, or forget about it.

    Moreover, it's my observation - my opinion, if you will - that you are a very close minded person. If that rattles you, or if you take it as an insult, too bad. If you don't want to be offended, then choose to not be offended. End of story.

    P.S. Just like a joke, if it has to be explained, it just didn't work. I suspect, however, that you really did understand that initial message, and were just being coy and evasive - and protective of someone you'd rather not call to task.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    Still not sure if I did.
    I assume it's what AV said.

    But what was insulting is you suggesting my misunderstanding is caused by my eyes being closed.


    But, I will admit that I am one of those tough to convince people in an argument. But it is possible to win me over.

    if your judging me purely from this thread, then I want to reiterate, all I have been saying is that, its not difficult to decide to not shoot children. And also a few pot shots at Americans while I can before American law makes it a terrorist activity.
    This includes things like saying America is closer to a war zone. that witches weight the same as Ducks. That gangs should kill each other. And that comic I posted.

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    And I was thinking about it the other day too. I didn't try to curb it when it started going sideways but it actually hasn't been too politically off track, a lot of personal opinions though and I think that's fine.

    Either way though, and I think this is what you are confusing here, I haven't offered my personal position on the matter, just my opinions on various observations. I am as opposed as I am in favour of gun rights, so I still haven't said I am pro or anti in anyway, I haven't made a political stand left or right or mentioned any presidents etc.
    I have addressed people's personal opinions, based on the comments though, which is exactly what I intended, whether right on topic or not.

    I simply didn't want it to become a Liberal Weenie vs Blind Conservative debate, LEFT vs RIGHT and I haven't said where I stand either way.

    I think people from both sides of the political spectrum have supported opinions both in favour and against gun control, it doesn't seem politically focused in that respect either.
    This made it a healthy debate about personal views of varied solutions.

    Clearly the title was out the window in a heartbeat, but the rest has been fairly interesting, whether I personally agree or not, it seems to be an open minded debate.

    You initial comments were good, though contested, which is all part of a discussion. Did you have a relevant opinion to offer still or are you just playing on misinterpreting the disclaimer?

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Looking inward at the US, and from anyone I've spoken to that has had the ability to do the same, it is one extremist vs the other.

    Right wing is EXTREME right wing and goes to every length to be so.
    Left wing is no different.

    The two are so far apart, it;s just a matter of time before a US civil war again. America has the ability to be a very mighty nation as it was was well on it's way to be. What I see holding it back is the constant separation of the people. Laws stay stagnant, bills are shot down purely due to origin etc. I have found that, when in the US, people are more interested in knowing your political view (which side are YOU on) than knowing your name. Almost every discussion I've had here in the last dozen years has turned into left vs right, seemingly no matter what the topic.

    When Obama supports doing "somthing" about increased gun control. the Right wing instantly says, you can't take away our guns??! WTF??? Controlling ownership is not removing guns from law abiding citizens hands. Making them harder to obtain a permit for is also not taking away guns from law abiding citizen's hands. That's the instant extremism of the chosen party's followers though.

    It was the same with every election. One comment is taken so far out of context that it is an absolute extreme of what was actually said, so much so that the truth is quickly buried in a mass of mud.

    There is no middle ground. In Canada, while I heavily support protection of wildlife and welfare, I disagree with most of the left leaning people who hang onto BS and spew it religiously but I feel the same about our Conservatives too.

    From a Canadian's view, I am far right. In America I would be seen as a tree hugging democrat though, when I actually don't support many of the democratc views in the US either. The problem is, to many Americans, I am Canadian so I MUST be a socialist, even though we haven't elected a socialist government in eons. ( in fact, I haven't voted either way in Canada as I am not technically Canadian either).

    The need to instantly tag someone as right or left clouds all reality and truth, clouds the voices of the people and the actions of the leaders. It is impossible to find middle ground there because it simply isn't a place that exists, you are either right, left or MUST be left because you are sitting on the fence and that makes you weak. Weak is left of course and being cold hearted and militant means you are a right wing conservative, a real man's man. There is no hope for America to ever be at full strength or hold ultimate power because they all run amok and combat each other. Laws won't change because, besides being logical or a way of saving lives, the two sides MUST oppose each other at all costs. America calls themselves united and suggest that together they stand, however no other nation on Earth is as politically divided...besides some of the radical extremist driven, Middle Eastern countries, which the US is ever so peacefully fixing for the benefit of their poor, downtrodden people, out of the kindness of America's collective hearts.

    It's a civil war in the making, and a long time coming so it's bound to be a doosey. The South will rise again! Hopefully so allied forces can put the Disjointed States or America out of their misery and start with a clean slate.

    Now THAT'S the political position Max was hoping for.

    +
    1 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    I must admit that the spirit of compromise seems to have disappeared from my country. I'm not sure how widespread that absence really is. I know it's MIA within the halls of Congress, but maybe the record low approval ratings will bring it back out of the bush. I suspect it's conveniently ignored merely for the sake of political gain by the party mouthpieces and hardline political media pundits who toss red meat to the slobbering dogs on both fringes. I can only hope it isn't truly extinct in the minds of the average voter.

    As to being united, I certainly don't see it reaching the point of physical civil war, on this or any other issue. Like any other family, we may fight internally but don't kid yourself. We've pulled together against external threats over bigger issues than gun control and the federal budget. Unfortunately, an external threat is usually what it takes before we'll unite, and we don't long stay together once it's been defeated.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    like with passing the PATRIOT act?

    +
    0 Votes
    SmartAceW0LF

    many strikes at the American people's liberty. Where it was that we had a choice in it I do not recall. I do recall our current president's promise to repeal it or at very least to pull it back some. More lies. His evident enthusiasm (judging by the amount of time it took him to affirm his position with actions rather than words) lends evidence he knew it to be a lie when broadcasting it in his pre-election speeches.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    Question:= How do you know when a Politician is telling a lie?

    Answer:- You can see their lips moving.

    Now be honest it doesn't matter who won what they honestly where never in a position to do anything at all.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    The ones who believe politicians are lying @#$%^%$, but still place their trust in them.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    Why about 50% of US Voters simply do not vote.

    They know no matter who they vote for they are going to get a Lieing Cheating Sod who is owned by the Political Party that they belong to.

    Actually the real problem here isn't the Politicians but the Political Parties. Doesn't matter where you are the Party selects who is best for the Party not the Country.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    With the amount of money required to run a political campaign, you need to be seriously rich to start with, or have connections with those that are.

    +
    1 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    the jingoisticly named PATRIOT act was a knee-jerk over reaction by a Congress more concerned with appearing to make this country more secure than actually accomplishing doing so. Ditto its inflammatorily named 'Homeland' Security dept. offspring, a word that rings of the Soviet era or Nazi Germany. What was the matter with the word 'Domestic'?

    End of rant. These are purely unsupportable personal opinions; there's almost no chance I'll alter them.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Some politicians, but no persons.

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    It presupposes there always is - and always should be - middle ground between differing opinions, different desired outcomes, different values, and so on.

    The notion of compromise being applied to every disagreement IS NOT the solution, it's the friggin' problem. It touches on what Ronald Reagan referred to when he suggested that government was not the solution, it was the problem.

    We cannot possibly find compromise for all our differences; and American government WAS NOT created to be the arbiter of compromise, but rather the protector of liberty. We should therefore find a way to accommodate the differences and live with them. And that, my friend, is an element of liberty, something I've noticed that only I will dare to advance in these threads.

    I'm sick of the people beating the drums of compromise when the sound of liberty is much sweeter. And the only ones who find the sounds of liberty as sour notes, are the very ones who wish to impose their will on others - and both sides do it.

    Start with the premise of liberty and accommodation - the lowest common denominator, if you will - work your way up from there, and the solution to almost any issue is obvious. Moreover, it's the foundation of our country. Try to build something onto a foundation that wasn't designed to support it, and it's sure to crumble.

    Geesh!

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    I disagree with your use of words and phrases like 'always', 'every disagreement', and other definitives. Indeed, in themselves they deny the possibility of compromise.

    There are times when compromise is appropriate, and times when it is not. If both sides agree on 90% of an issue, I view accepting that much as more producting than both sides each repeatedly insisting on 100% of what they want and getting nothing over and over.

    No, we can't find compromise on ALL our disagreements, and that isn't what government is for. But lately our elected representatives refuse to seek compromise even on those disagreements that are and should be part of their jobs.

    "We should therefore find a way to accommodate the differences and live with them."

    Liberty and compromise don't have to be in opposition. We've agreed that the liberty to yell 'Fire' ends in a crowded theater. Can I assume you agree that one person's liberty to swing his fists ends at the next person's nose? How is 'accomodating the differences' not compromising?

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    You start by saying, "Where we disagree", and you then, pretty much, dismiss and/or disagree with everything I said.

    Why don't you try something different? Try to point out where we do agree, and leave the disagreements for later.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    Then we agree on the following:

    "... It touches on what Ronald Reagan referred to when he suggested that government was not the solution, it was the problem.

    We cannot possibly find compromise for all our differences; and American government WAS NOT created to be the arbiter of compromise, but rather the protector of liberty. We should therefore find a way to accommodate the differences and live with them. And that, my friend, is an element of liberty, ...

    the only ones who find the sounds of liberty as sour notes, are the very ones who wish to impose their will on others - and both sides do it.

    Start with the premise of liberty and accommodation - the lowest common denominator, if you will - work your way up from there, and the solution to almost any issue is obvious. Moreover, it's the foundation of our country. Try to build something onto a foundation that wasn't designed to support it, and it's sure to crumble."

    That looks like 70% or 80%, a good starting point to my mind.

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Finding middle ground? LOL.

    It's interesting to read that you agree, there is no advantage to compromise when middle ground is not there to begin with. I think it results in a homogenized society too. Like dinner at Denny's, it's okay and most locations will serve the exact same dinner no matter where because they have set standards that everyone adheres to, whether in Alabama or Washington state. This works because the food, while okay, is also fairly tasteless. By 'manufacturing' bland food, it appeals to all pallets. If something is hot and spicey or tangy it usually doesn't stay on their menu for long, as with most fast food franchises too, stick to the formula.

    That said, a common saying that drives me right around the twist is, 'Let's agree to disagree'.

    I say NO, I DON'T F'ING AGREE AT ALL!! WHY AGREE TO DISAGREE?

    You know very well we have sat in opposition too many times to recount, however that adds the spice to our discussions and makes them more interesting, to me anyway. I don't want someone to agree with me all the time, I don't want to talk with someone I agree with all the time. And yet, while we find we oppose each other's voice in many ways, we have also been able to find middle ground, without either of us compromising or changing our personal beliefs. To me, THAT is debate. We don't have to agree but if we can have healthy debate for long enough, we generally find we agree on just as much, if not more, than we disagree on. Now, music, that's a different story, I think we know we are both like minds in that respect. Even though I work in the metal scene, we share so much common ground that the extremes simply don't exist.

    Make any sense?

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I'll leave it at that, for now, but will be interested in seeing if any others follow your lead. (Maybe I'll later discuss the stuff you didn't include - but I have a few things I need to get done first.)

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    You mean you want him to start by finding middle ground first in order to have a sensible discussion, which just may result in a more positive outcome? Isn't that compromising, in your eyes, though?

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    I think many, if not most Americans (and Canadians), actually feel more centered than they act. I'm sure that many people sit closer to the middle but speak further to the left or right in order to associate their beliefs with a like minded collective.

    So the issue isn't actually both sides backing off and sacrificing their true beliefs in order to advance an agenda, I see it as two side realizing that they aren't so extremely different after all and agreeing to seek a common, middle ground where both are appeased.

    The sense that it must be one way or another is where I see fault. I know that you don't always agree with the right or the left, though you clearly lean more toward the right, as do I. However, I have found that not all of your views are far right extremist views, and you support preservation of the country's natural beauty and wildlife, which is more left leaning than right.

    Everyone sees common ground without sacrifice, that ground needs to be allowed a voice without condemning it due to not being a political extreme.

    It's not compromise it is simply common ground that needs to be found.

    Perhaps the US won't break out into war, but never say never; if we were that astute, the world would be a much better place.

    One issue I see is that you fall back to the most basic, primitive foundations and want to build from there. While that would appear ideal, it is not realistic from my perspective.

    It's the same sensibility as living off the grid and surviving on the fat of the land, a fresh start, per se'. Sure, it technically can be done, by individuals, but I don't see it not working as a collective. If so, who would implement it and under who's understanding of the true foundations of the nation; yes, of course that definition will differ greatly too.

    We don't get many do overs in life, I think 200 years of national history and politics would not allow it in this case.

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Finding middle ground is not compromise. Many on the left and right share similar opinions...thus middle ground. When that middle ground is focused on, ignoring the two extremes to either side, effective action is generally found. When two side are s extremely opposed as America's left and right, there's no hope for ANY progress by ANY side as they will constantly work to revers the other when in power. It's like a tug o war where no side can hold the other long enough for the whistle to ****.

    +
    2 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    The vast majority of people I met in my 24 years in the USAF, from Kuwait to California, from Nairobi to Norway, only wanted to be seen–and treated–as people. Americans have chosen to focus on the myriad minor differences rather than that major similarity.

    Why? The American political class thrives on conflict. The media thrives on conflict. The oligarchy considers conflict a great distractor from what they are trying to do for themselves (and to the country).

    To feed that conflict, Americans are indoctrinated long and intensely in how different "they" are from "us". The media ignores the real issues and focuses on inconsequential crap. Churches contravene their chosen religious writings and preach hate. Hypocrisy abounds and is ignored. Ignorance becomes a way of life. And the media also serves as the positive feedback loop, to the point that most Americans never learn that the differences between "them" and "us" are more cosmetic than real.

    I don't know what it will take to break out of the cycle, but I do know that when it happens, the results will be terrifying to those in power. (i.e., those with the money).

    +
    1 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "To feed that conflict, Americans are indoctrinated long and intensely in how different "they" are from "us"."

    We don't have the Soviet Union available as a convenient national enemy any more. We also have new forms of media accessible around the clock that have to create and feed an audience or die. With no major external antagonists, the politicians, pundits, and single-issue supporters are left to create internal divisions, making canyons out of hairline cracks.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Clash of civilizations.
    The question: Now that the Soviets are gone, how can we keep existing?

    The answer: create a conflict with Islam.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    Iraq, Iran, and Al Qaeda did their best to offer conflict-seekers with a convenient target. I don't know if even their actions would have been sufficient if oil wasn't involved. Similar opportunities to compete with Islam exist outside the oil-producing regions, but they rarely get our attention.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Some prophecies fulfill themselves.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    What did Iraq do to deserve what they got? Other than have the wrong dictator in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oh, and have some oil.

    What did Iran do? There they were, minding their own business and the next thing they know is the CIA have executed their first successful regime-change (with help from the UK). The Iranians finally got rid of the Shah some twenty five years later, Why have they any reason to love the US and the UK? Why are they on your list? Oh, of course, they have oil.

    Al Qaeda, at least the Osama bin Laden bit, was a CIA creation to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda now is an loose-knit, very loose-knit, band of Islamists who know that calling themselelves 'Al Qaeda' is going to put the frighteners on the West.

    Your government - and mine - require scapegoats to allow them to push this "War on Terror" crap through. The Middle Easter government just loved Al Qaeda because they used them, too, to crack down on demonstrations and swindle money out of the US. Mubarak and Gadhaffi? That was nice company for George W Bush. And GWB, of course, was a more successful recruiter for Islamic terrorism than it's possible to imagine.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    Iran's mistake was invading Kuwait, unfortunately drawing US attention via our 'friends' in Saudi Arabia.

    Iraq's mistake wasn't overthrowing the Shah, but kidnapping US embassy personnel during the revolution.

    For those looking for an excuse to demonize someone, those actions were sufficient. But yes, in both cases our government wouldn't have cared for very long if oil wasn't involved, especially after the hostages were released. I believe we wouldn't care about Israel if it wasn't in the middle of Oilvania. While we're at it, I've never understood why tiny harmless communist Cuba isn't considered an acceptable trade partner but huge China is. Surely it isn't just about the trade dollars, is it? Nah...

    Way off-topic rant - I hold the Ayatollah Khomeini personally responsible for the rise of 24-hour news networks. When the US embassy personnel were being held, US television networks began running five-minute situation updates at 11:30, after the local news but before Carson and other late-night fare. These expanded to 30 minutes, and eventually begat 24-hour CNN. There wasn't enough 'news' to fill even the one network's round-the-clock schedule, much less all its imitators. End of rant.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    The Iraq War was 2003. I fail to properly see the connection.

    As for the hostage crisis, I draw your attention to my earlier point about the CIA's imposition of the Shah. We screwed their entire country, payback was to be expected. Then you tried an armed recue attempt...

    I do find the US's attitude to Cuba truly outsiide of my ability to understand. You could have long since killed their regime off with kindness.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    I'm just speculating as to how Islam became the target du jour. If you have other theories, by all means, trot them out.

    I understood why the Iranian people wanted to unload the Shah, but I don't think that excused violating the generally accepted principle of diplomatic immunity.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    But what I'm saying is that they, Iraq, Iran and Al Qaeda are scapegoats in that they were or are not the threats that they have been described as. In much the same way that the US particularly and the West in general are scapegoats for some Islamic countries.

    Whether this is a deliberate and cynical ploy by the politicians or stupidity on the part of the politicians , I don't know.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "Whether this is a deliberate and cynical ploy by the politicians or stupidity on the part of the politicians , I don't know."

    D. All of the above.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Due an an inferiority complex, it is important to instill the same upon others? Much as someone that is insecure always points out flaws in everyone else.

    Perhaps Americans just stand out from the crowd everywhere as being loud and obnoxious because they are trained to see others as inferior and thus have to be louder and prouder than others, to express superiority.

    I've seen it many, many times where, Americans accused of being too loud and proud, will retort with 'you wouldn't understand, we feel that way because America IS the best and we have freedoms and rights that we have fought for".

    This not only illustrates arrogance and utter ignorance but also implies that the other nation just wouldn't comprehend what it's like to be proud because they have nothing to be proud of.

    If you visit the UK, the people are the exact opposite in that they are self deprecating and will laugh at themselves before others. Brits call it being humble, I see it as the same as being comfortable in your own skin. Britain has fought for it's own freedom and rights more times than the US too. People just don't seem to have a need to express superiority, but there is a very strong, quiet and inherent pride in all Brits.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    And your point, here? I'm assuming it's that communists are so implicitly bad that anything that they agree with is unhesitatingly wrong.

    That was certainly the premise in the rubbish at the end of your link. Mao Tse Tung, for heavens's sake. He brought MaoTse Tung into the argument. Then, it got worse. Stalin. And then bloody Lenin! Shouldn't Godwin's Law apply to right-wing mouth-frothers? I think it should.

    I loved the bit about the UK's "hunting ban". Context, please! The ban was on hunting foxes with dog packs. No guns here!

    I loved the little sideways dig at the "journalist", with journalist in quotes. Hello! We can't have a communist journalist, eh? What sort of muppet wrote the piece? Googling him seems to suggest he's a conspiracy theory nut. That's well-supported by this piece of drivel!

    I mean, "centralized monopoly of force which invariably turns tyrannical and deadly." We're doomed. We're all doomed.Well, we are over here as we don't have guns.

    I usually follow any links that you post as, generally, you don't post links to total tosh. Don't make a habit of this!

    By the way, what is it with the "Founding Fathers" and the reverence in which they seem to be held by you guys? So, it's really good for everyone to have guns but blacks have no rights?

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ..... that I just wanted to post that link.

    Regarding your last question - reverence with our founders?

    I'll answer your question (again), but why is it I have to answer the same kinds of questions over and over again. You guys don't seem to get a grasp of it.

    It's not the people (founders); it's not the paper (constitution); it's the underlying principle - which means it's not really any given issue either, but rather the underlying principle which should act as a compass when considering issues.

    Look at how dishonest ANSU is being up above about the definition of the word conservative - like I don't know the meaning of the word and its different variants and applications. He's hiding behind a word in an attempt to conceal his underlying principle. Likewise, people criticize "the founders" and the "constitution" as old white men and an out-dated piece of paper, all the while refusing to address the underlying principle, which is not outdated, and is inclusive to all men (gender neutral).

    By the way, you knew that. So why did you have to ask?

    On your pet peeve issue right now? And how I would reconcile our different outlooks and approaches?

    Our federal government simply does not have the power to implement sweeping gun control laws. I would go on to explain myself, but I think I'll see what kind of criticism ..... I mean reply ..... that comment might generate.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    I think we've established over the years that I really don't quite get it. Never have. Maybe you have to grow up with it to appreciate what it means. Maybe you have to have NOT grown up with and have grown up with a totally different system to get a different perspective. Let me try and explain what we have over here and then YOU may understand why I don't get it. Why we are SO different.

    You have The Constitution. Capital 'T', capital 'C'. It's written on one document, codified, and amendable with great difficulty. Our constitution is uncodified, is contained in some documents such as the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights the Act of Settlement, and the Act of Union but it is also, and mostly, contained in common law. It evolved haphazardly through conflicts between different power-groups over the last thousand years, Monarchy vs Barons, Monarchy vs Parliament, Parliament vs People giving rise to anything from minor constitutional changes through to major political upheaval and civil war. It eveolved through Case Law, Common Law and Acts of Parliament. It is now being further modified by interaction with the European Union via our signature on European Human rights legislation. The Human Rights Act enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

    The reason we don't have a written constitution is because our country has been stable for a very long time when compared to most of the rest of the World. We remained free from the revolutionary fever that gave us the French Revolution and we weren't a new country like the US that required codification of citizens' rights as a necessary part of the process of independence. so we never bothered to write it down.

    Your constitution tells you what your rights are, whereas our constitution is a little different in that we have the right to do anything EXCEPT that which is prohibited by law. The law, and therefore the constitution, in Britain doesn't tell us what rights we HAVE, it tells us what rights we DON'T have. To get to that point, by the way, you needed the 9th amendment.

    We are a Constitutional Monarchy and Parliamentary Democracy. Parliament, using the power of the Crown, enacts law which no other body can challenge. Parliamentary sovereignty is commonly regarded as the defining principle of the British Constitution with the ultimate lawmaking power vested in a democratically elected Parliament to create or abolish any law.

    It seems to work. We may get it all written down, one day. But, I suspect (and hope), not soon. And, if they do try and write it down, then it will probably be the wrong "they" and it will be wrong. And wrong forever. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It gives us a constitution that, for the average Joe citizen (me), I have no real idea what my rights are but I haven't run up aginst anything obviously missing, yet. It's a constituution that is fluid and adaptable but because we have had it for a long time, it changes slowly and not in big jumps.

    It is changing, though. We have had the introduction of codified rights of individuals for the the first time in the Human Rights Act 1998, and devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These recent constitutional reforms may have made the constitution less flexible in some respects as, certainly, devolution would seem difficult to reverse and that goes against the principle that no Parliament should pass a law that another Parliament cannot undo.

    So. do I understand your adherence to a rigid document written some hundreds of years ago by men who had no idea how the world would be now? No, not really. But I have the same trouble understanding religions and for much the same reasons.

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    To think about it, there's only one reason I get involved in anything political in the first place.

    I'd much rather just stroll along the yellow brick road of my life, being content in not knowing where it will lead and knowing it offers no guarantees; minding my own business, and taking care of my own business - and certainly not minding anyone else's business; not bothering anyone at all, not hurting anyone, and being willing to stop and help someone I see along my way; and so on.

    But I'm always finding myself saying (or thinking) things like:

    Leave me the f^%$& alone - mind your own business - I don't give a rat's ash about your stupid problem - I'm responsible for your what? - You've got to be f#$$^%& kidding me! - I said to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS - Don't suck me into your stupid scheme - You believe what? - You believe who? - You've got to be f#$$^%& kidding me! - I said to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS - and on it goes.......

    Do you know what I mean, Neli?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    will answer you later. I may join in.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I'll blame the rant. (Upon rereading, that was funny!)

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    I really do, in fact I feel the same way quite often, when I do I find it best to give my head a shake and not care about people begging for help.

    Much like yourself, I prefer to help people when I see a need to help them, not when I'm told to or asked to.

    Before you bring it up, I don't get the same feeling from having welfare take my tax dollars to help others. I just don't and I know you see it as the same thing and perhaps I should too but I accept it as a necessary evil.

    I really do relate to that mindset though, 'who am I to resolve your screw ups?'

    Not a great example but playing on the same mindset, there's a guy at the track who ALWAYS asks you to buy him a pop when you turn up. As soon as you walk in the door its "Hey, see the Canucks game last night? Buy me a pop?"

    Okay, in his defense he is a bit slow, actually he's quite slow, I'm not sure what actual mental issues he has but he's surely not on par with the rest of us.

    I'm patient for that simple fact of course and I'll always buy him a pop because, well, because he's 'an old face at the track, in his mid 50's now and there are worse people I have to deal with.

    It has gotten to the point now though where he EXPECTS you to buy him a pop.
    HE -"It's Chinese New Year, you gonna buy me a pop for Chinese New Year?"
    I - 'Sure man, I'll get you a pop when I buy my next beer.'
    HE - "When are you getting your next beer?"
    I - 'Not sure buddy, but I won't forget okay?'

    At this point I haven't even checked in, bought a voucher, taken off my coat or found my seat at the bar.

    I - order a beer and a pop. 'Hey buddy, here's that pop you wanted'
    HE - 'Oh, okay, there's one muffin left, buy me a muffin?'

    This is where I get ticked. The guy gets disability, welfare or whatever, he practically LIVES at the track (in fact he was all worked up last week because they decided to open an hour later in the morning) He used to have a menial job at some warehouse, flattening boxes or whatever, but he had a job, bottom line.
    His sister, who nobody has met, is known to be rather wealthy and it seems that the track has become the place they tell him to hang out all day, like a care home.

    So while I have NO PROBLEM buying a guy a pop, and in his case he does have some issues where he doesn't comprehend courtesy, it is STILL that sense that he is entitled to something and expects a handout that gets to me.

    To be fair, I try not to encourage it but I do always by him a pop, as does everyone else he knows there. But I have also told him before that I'll buy him a pop if I feel like it and that it's not good to just walk around asking everyone for a pop.

    It's getting to the point now though that I think, 'why does your family just expect you to come and beg here all day? If your family is wealthy, then why aren't THEY being responsible for your well being?'

    I think they actually do give him a bit of money each day for food etc. but he'll just drop it on a horse and then ask someone to buy him food or drink. I don't see it as HIS fault but more so his family's fault. It's like they have just put him out to pasture, please forgive the pun.

    I work all day and stop in for a beer and a bite after work, see a few old familiar faces and place a few bets while waiting out rush hour. Why is it MY issue to take care of him? If you don't 'help him out' then someone else will offer up handout and you get dirty looks for saying no to him or telling him to wait a while.

    Then it's a matter of I'm an ***hole for not cowtowing to his pleas, which is also encouraging it.

    Note: This is also a guy who can drink gallon after gallon of pop. He'll take a large pop and drink it all without stopping for a breath.

    Perhaps a poor example but it was just last night that I was thinking about it, 'why am I a bad guy for not offering a hand out EVERY TIME I SEE THE GUY?" And I see him several times a week.

    Buying him a pop doesn't have any financial impact on me, if he is hungry and wants a muffin, NO PROBLEM! It's not the money, it's just the expectation that I have money and so I should be offering handouts every time.

    Rant over, sorry, i tried to stay somewhat on track but it was a bug in my ear that I had to clear out.

    +
    0 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    Its very brevity makes it accomodating to a variety of historical eras. The secret to its usefulness is that legislators, courts, and the people have to accomodating of change. And they have been, for the most part. Americans start from a naive faith in the sweet nature of progress, and reshape their habits, institutions, and congressional interpretation to make the best out of whereever progress takes them.

    There were some rascals in the early and mid 19th century who resisted progress, but we had a transformative little war and fixed them, more or less.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    that gives you weirdies like the Second Amendment that is interpreted so many ways by so many different people. You have the Eigth Amendment and yet you have capital punishment, waterboarding, Gitmo and the largest prison population in the World. Certainly, it's flexible if the scope for (mis)interpretation is added in with Judicial Reviews to change the meaning every so often.

    The Eighteenth and the Twenty-First were fun, eh? The Land Of The (Alcohol) Free.

    Still, whatever suits you.

    Lucky you could get your Civil Rights Act through without a Constitutional Amendment else they'd still be at the back of the bus.

    +
    3 Votes
    neilb@uk

    The PATRIOT Act managed to go through without a Constitutional Amendment and if ever there was a case of something actually making all those guns relevent, that was it. But the concept of the armed citizenry acting as a brake on government is so much bollux, anyway. The chances of enough of you agreeing what's wrong with your government and what should be done about it is zero. But, hey, it's your constitutional right to fail to think through the fine detail so you're damn well going to keep it.

    The French Revolution gave us the Terror and then Napoleon. The Russian Revolution gave us Lenin and then Stalin. What makes you think a bunch of armed Libertarians arguing which of the sayings of Ayn Rand should be sanctified into law are going to last any longer than the Provisional Government in Russia?

    +
    2 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    Just noting that among the English speaking peoples, in every land, a proper respect for liberty, process, and free speech has its failing moments.

    The Patriot Act's actual Orwellian name (it's so easy to forget) is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"; the acronym is USA PATRIOT. The point of the whole name is to come up with that acronym, which actually means "any congressman who votes against this bill is against the USA and against patriotism and is a turd who should be wiped from the national butt in the 2002 mid-term elections." The secret code embedded therein may not be as obvious to people outside the USA as it was to us, here.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    I remember wanting to applaud the few lawmakers that refused to vote for it.
    Just one senator voted against it in 2001, Russ Feingold. Voted against it in 2006, too.
    66 reps voted against it in 2001, just a handful of them Republicans.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    It's pretty draconian in that the people who define "secret" are not always -seldom - justified in so doing. However, it has a long long way to go to catch up with the Patriot Act! Just a few pleasantries...

    Third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical and place of worship records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it's "trying to protect against terrorism".

    Secret searches can be authorised by a secret court without accountability, so long as there is a putative "foreign intelligence" basis for the search.

    An unknowing association with a "known" terrorist is a deportable offense.

    It's even got us over here. If I do business with a UK subsidiary of a US-based cloud operator, even if I specify that English law applies and I mandate a UK-based data centre operating under EU data protection laws, the FBI can still get access to my data.

    The point I was making -and still am - was that you have the Patriot Act DESPITE the rights that some (a lot) of Americans keep wittering on about in threads on gun laws and such. Yes, we have similar laws and government control and nanny state the EU is about as anti-democratic as it's possible to be but what we DON'T do is bang endlessly on about "Freedom" and "Inalienable Rights" and feel it our duty to export the ideal.

    We just went about bitchslapping half of the World into the shape we wanted. Don't know why we gave it up. Everywhere has gone to the dogs, since and at least we were honest about our reasons for Empire.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "Our federal government simply does not have the power to implement sweeping gun control laws."

    We disagree on the word 'sweeping'. Would you say the federal government has any power to pass any gun control laws? Does any law on the subject automatically default to violating the 2nd amendment? For example, does federal registration of serial numbers violate the right to keep and bear? If so, how?

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I wonder how some of the current laws have passed constitutional scrutiny (generally speaking, that is). Nonetheless, I think any federal gun law is treading on dangerous territory, in that it arguably violates the second amendment.

    Arguably being the key component of my comment, with respective arguments taken to extremes on either side - and again, to say "extremes" is even subjective.

    By the way, I'm not sure how to respond to you (or anyone else, for that matter) when you nitpick on words. Gee, I used the word "sweeping". Maybe I could have pulled another word out of my ash (tray) that would have been more appropriate for more people. Sometimes things just come out without having been given a lot of thought. I wish people would nitpick less and seek overall understanding more; and I think the former prevents the latter - oftentimes done intentionally, but not always.

    Does registering the serial numbers of my weapons to the federal government violate the text of the 2nd amendment? How in the **** do I know? How in the **** does anybody know? Arguably, both yes and no, depending on who you ask and what their desired end result is. And it's for that kind of reason I'd prefer to start with the premise and work up (something advocates of progressivism refuse to do (because they fear to do), by the way).

    Do I want to give the serial numbers of my weapons to the federal government? **** no. That's not the intent of the federal government in regards to any of the articles or amendments of the constitution - the rules under which government must operate.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "That's not the intent of the federal government in regards to any of the articles or amendments of the constitution..."

    "...promote the general welfare..."

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I don't know how they've gotten away with it.

    Neither does my buddy, James:

    With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

    "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."


    - James Madison (regarding the general welfare clause)

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    I think I follow Palmetto's lead on this and I also wonder how changing how guns are registered actually infringes on the right to bear arms.As far as I can tell, nobody has removed rights, they are just keeping a registry of who, what and when.

    I light of the current out of control situation, is it really so impeding ?

    Secondly, and I see both views to this again, why would registering your guns with the Federal government be an issue? Do you oppose having your licence plate number being held in a central database ? If not, is the difference simply the fact that you don't have a right to drive noted in the Constitution?

    I know, 'they know enough about me already, too much in fact, why do they need to micromanage my affairs?

    I completely agree with that view point too, in fact I simply didn't exist about 5 years ago, England thought I was Canadian, Canada thought I was British, income tax didn't know where I was etc. It felt pretty nice for a few years but I really don't care now and am tracked like a bear in the woods.

    What is the actual issue with respect to the 2nd amendment though?
    Is it a feeling that the loss of SOME rights will lead to the loss of others too?

    Is it even an actual loss of rights? Control, not removal?

    Is it that American rights get trampled on enough and people are just fed up now?

    Is it that the information they want to collect is seen as useless and just a reason to collect personal data?

    I just don't get how it's an issue or why people are so enraged over the whole matter. If it was me, I don't know how I would oppose it, not being American of course.

    Living in Canada, I thought it was pretty easy to go and get a permit, I didn't find a mandatory wait time to be an inconvenience of any sort. As long as you are not a criminal or psycho, you can have a gun, that basis seems pretty fair and acceptable to me, in fact I'm glad someone IS keeping tabs on guns.

    Perhaps this really is one of those things that, unless you are American, you just don't understand it.

    or is it one of those things where, you FEEL, that unless someone is American they wouldn't understand freedoms and liberties?

    How its even a topic of discussion that lasted more than 5 minutes baffles me.
    To me its like saying "The number of deaths due to guns is going through the roof in our country. Let's put together a together registry and REALLY check people out before issuing a permit."

    To me that would be,
    'I second the motion',
    'motion carried, next order of business...'

    Seems like such a no brainer, I just don't get it.

    I THINK what Americans see is:
    'okay, I second the motion''motion carried'
    'next order of business, taking guns away from women under 40'
    'motion carried'
    'next order of business, taking guns away from white msales living in populated aread'
    'motion carried'
    etc?

    Is that the fear, one allowance will lead to others, give them an inch and they take a mile?

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "England thought I was Canadian, Canada thought I was British,..."

    Are you sure it wasn't just that neither wanted you?

    And yes, some people view gun registration as the first step down an increasingly steep slope that leads to restriction and inevitably prohibition.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Surely if that was their aim, they'd just do it right off the bat. No need to piddle around. I think the US knows very well just how poorly their attempts at prohibition have been (drugs and booze? c'mon, there are more guns in the US than drugs, I'd think).

    Why do so many Americans not trust the government and yet state it's the best place on the planet to live?
    There's got to be SOME association there, one would think that feeling you live in the best nation would go hand in hand with feeling you had the best government too.

    It seems that most people want to stop irresponsible use of guns, especially those who are properly trained and practice for sport. The bad ones always make it worse for the good ones. But those same people fear that the government will strip them of their rights. They want more control but don't want more control?!

    Is it that people feel the PEOPLE committing crimes need to be corrected and not the laws themselves?

    How can that possibly work? If we could determine people's mental weaknesses that closely, there would be no crime and no plea of insanity.

    I just don't get it. It seems the focus is that if each side argues about ridiculous fallacies, then nothing gets done and everyone carries on as usual, except the problem continues to escalate.

    For a nation full of forward thinking people, how do those, who are stuck in the dark ages and simply won't accept that change is needed, have such a voice?

    Seriously, I just don't see how its even an issue of debate, especially one that constantly results in a stalemate. I might say Americans are gullible consumers or that they can be lead like sheep but seriously, this can't just be a matter of people's blind ignorance, or is it?

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    I don't buy into that theory myself. I don't distrust our government as much as regard it as too incompetent to pull off something like total weapons ban. Even if such a proposed amendment would get through Congress, it would never get past the state legislatures. Anyway, the alcohol prohibition demonstrated that total bans are unenforceable.

    +
    0 Votes
    JamesRL

    Long guns in Canada were required to be registered since 1993, but that part of the law was thrown out by the Conservative government last year. Handguns have been registered in Canada since the 1930s.

    There have been restrictions on automatic weapons, clip sizes, regulations around safe storage etc. mandatory safety training, for decades.

    So it is entirely possible to implement some controls, but not slide down some slippery slope into a ban.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    That;s the way I see it. Clearly many Americans fear that if they give an inch the government takes a mile. I know I have seen some changes and proposals here too that many, including myself, saw as a start with more to come. I can understand that mindset but it seems SO ingrained into so many US minds that one has to wonder if they trust government at all or if they feel its a crooked operation that needs to be either fixed by noncompliance or replaced entirely.

    I think again the whole left vs right issue comes into play. the right will oppose Obama, no matter what, no matter how valid and no matter the reasons. He's left and must be opposed without consideration. If a right wing president were in office, I think it might play out similar though. Either he would be a visionary and everyone accepted change but it is more likely they'd see him a s flip-flopper or a democrat in a republican's clothing.

    I know some actually feel that there should be no government at all, free reign for all etc. But I think that's seen as pretty radical by most.

    I honestly don't see the US government trying to take it to great lengths, even if people agreed to more stringent checks and longer wait times. the ONLY benefit I see from that is reduced, random killing sprees and fewer guns landing in irresponsible hands.

    Granted, it won't stop all gun violence nor is it be proposed to do so, but ANY life saved is still one life saved. As I said before, how many lives saved does it need to be deemed a worthy solution, 1, 15, 50?

    The fear of a slippery slope is somewhat valid, if the government has been proven to do so in the past, but I honestly don't see it being taken to that extreme. Any elected leader in power at such a time would never see reelection, it just wouldn't make sense politically either.

    I think it's the common fear, uncertainty and doubt.

    Fear of change. Uncertainty on how it will take effect and who it will effect. Doubt toward the effectiveness of dramatic change or the seemingly inevitable slippery slope.

    I don't see any of those reasons as a valid excuse to not save more lives; even if just a few, it's a valid change.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board with President Obamas plan to attack Americans right to keep and bear arms as a means to 'end gun violence.'"

    I disagree with the article's title of 'gun grab', and I disagree that the proposed changes to gun regulations are an 'attack on rights to keep and bear arms'. These phrases tell me the article is not going to be impartial.

    I don't buy into the 'slippery slope' theory that any regulation automatically leads to elimination. We had an ban on so-called assault weapons for a decade; it didn't lead to the elimination of other types of weapons.

    I see nothing wrong with closing the 'gun show loophole'. Travelling retailers should be required to comply with the same laws as brick-and-mortar retailers.

    I don't see anything wrong with state or national databases tracking serial numbers. We do the same with automobile VINs; that's hadn't led to government confiscation of cars, but does make it harder to sell stolen ones, return recovered stolen property to its owner, and identify vehicles used in crimes.

    If that makes me a communist, fine with me. I wasn't aware that agreeing with someone on one principle automatically meant I agreed with them on all principles, but so be it, comrade. I guess I'm a lesbian too.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    If they start having a central registration database of your serial numbers, the next step is to remove your right to ignore posts.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    From my view, whic seems to mirror your own, the entire premise of the first paragraph is convoluted and one sided. "Obama's plan to attack Americans right to keep and bear arms" sounds pretty biased in it's context. Is Obama REALLY out to "attack" people's rights? or does he propose that some changes need to be made for the nation and to safely progress?

    "as a means to end gun violence" I could be wrong but I highly doubt he's said as much, at least not in that simple context. It is a means to help reduce unnecessary deaths and greater CONTROL will most likely validate the effort.

    Once again, how many lives saved does it take to make it a valid solution?

    It's a bit of a trick question really. IF the answer is 1, then clearly it shows a value toward human life. If you say 10 or 50 or 100, then one's humanity is questionable. The question is still very valid though, if one is to deny such actions as being valid, then they surely have a value placed on human life and HOW MUCH VALUE is the key question, which any 'freedom of gun ownership' supporter can not honestly answer.

    The whole registry idea even upsets some. As Max said, not to point fingers but purely as example, he wouldn't feel comfortable with the serials of his guns being kept in a central registry by the government. It's completely understandable that one would feel almost violated and sharing similar information makes a person uneasy. I've felt the same way about other issues with government knowledge of my activities.

    Nobody seems to mind them having a record of your vehicle registration though.

    What's the difference with guns? They are just as lethal, if not more, than a car?

    I understand there are over 5000 THOUSAND gun shows in the US each year! It's simply a staggering number, more than car shows, electronics shows, boat shows, home shows etc. and I mean a LOT more.

    LOL, without even reading it, I had replied to the registration comment with the same view as yourself.

    As for your newly found political status, I wouldn't worry about it. I'm tagged as a left wing, tree hugging , commie, socialist.

    In reality I am none of the above though.

    +
    1 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    That article is so unhinged I don't know where to begin.

    +
    1 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    The persistent lie about Hitler taking away the guns (he didn't, it was the Weimar government's response to the requirements of the Treaty of Versailles).

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    If they're really on to something, how come their arguments are backed by phony crap spouted by crackpots and freaks?

  • +
    1 Votes
    BFilmFan

    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.

    +
    2 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    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?

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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 **** 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.

    +
    1 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

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

    +
    1 Votes
    BFilmFan

    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.

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

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

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    stick around for as long as I have, and you won't be confused... oh, wait. No, it just gets worse, really :^0

    +
    1 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    :^0

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    BFilmFan

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Monarchy was totalitarian totality: It affected every view of every aspect of life.
    Then you got rid of the kings, but those totalitarian views did not change overnight, it took many conflicts and many majority wins to slowly iron those monarchic wrinkles out of your fabric.

    +
    2 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    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...

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Nick if or when you have time, elaborate, I see where you are going and it's a really good perspective but needs more to contextualize it.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

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

    +
    2 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

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

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

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

    +
    1 Votes
    Slayer_

    That's all.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    1 Votes
    Slayer_

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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 **** 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.

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Now I'm cleaning my monitor !

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

    Priceless!

    +
    0 Votes
    SmartAceW0LF

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    As you know, his "Jefferson Lies" turned out to be aptly named: they turned out to be a collection of David Barton's own lies about Jefferson.

    In that day and age, before the discovery of Evolution, it took a lot of guts and mental rigor to arrive at a non-theistic conclusion. If you look closer, I did not equate religiosity with idiocy, but rather I said their stance on the god stuff showed their mental acuity.

    +
    1 Votes
    Slayer_

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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, **** 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.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    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?

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    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.

    +
    2 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    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.

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    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?

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

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

    /sarcasm

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Not always. You are allowed to use reasonable force, whatever force is required in order to remove the threat from your home. If the intruder is not armed, you cannot shoot him/her. If the intruder is armed and you have reason to fear for your own or other family members lives, you can shoot the intruder, IF no other means would have stopped the threat.

    When I was a security foreman I ran into these issues all the time, almost nightly actually. No matter how well trained guards were, some drunk concert or game attendee would start the excessive violence claims with police. Of course, with cameras everywhere, it was easy to prove either way. The trick is removal of the threat.

    If someone comes at you with a knife and you grab it and stab him with it, you can face assault charges. If someone comes at you with a knife, you grab it and pin him to the ground, you are okay.

    The key is grabbing the knife. Once you have it, he is unarmed and you have removed the threat.

    So if some guy has a gun pointed at you, the American solution would be to shoot before he did. By Canadian law that would ALMOST be acceptable but not always due to grey area.

    If some guy in Canada has a gun pointed at you and you can safely flee, you must do so, run like a little rabbit.

    The castle doctrine in the US is becoming harder and harder to stand/hide behind. That's when you can shoot anyone on your property. There have been cases where the intruder fled the home and was shot while leaving. If he has his back to the shooter and is leaving, the Castle doctrine no longer applies and you are the assailant.

    As more old school Americans die and a more aware generation grows older, there is greater support for more realistic measures than just shoot first and ask questions later. It's gonna take a few decade yet, but American society will come around to the mindset shared by other free nations one day. How bad it will be by then, I don't really know though.

    +
    2 Votes
    maxwell edison

    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. .

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "... 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. :-)

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ..... 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.

    +
    1 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    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.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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!"

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    So logically she was a witch.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    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!

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    It was 100 years removed from reality / accuracy / truthfulness / etc.

    and/or

    It was one (of many) of the very things that happened under the rule of King (whomever) of England (George in the late 18th Century, I don't know in the 17th), and only lends to illustrate what led to the break from England and the creation of the United States Republic.