|
United States7483 Posts
On January 18 2012 14:18 inamorato wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 13:37 Probulous wrote:First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists If those are the reasons that the US does not have stricter gun control then you guys have officially gone bat-shit crazy  That's paranoia to the extreme. I mean the right to weaponry must be maintained at all costs? Objectively at what point does changing the amendment becoming reasonable? How many people have to die from random shootings before it gets taken seriously. Your second point is a chicken and egg argument and can disproved by the fact that other countries have tight gun control and have not ended up in chaos (down here for example). People kill people, not guns. A statement I'm sure you've heard many times before. I don't remember murder being invented when they released the musket. You know where we see mass murder when it comes to guns? In states that restrict the right to bear arms in public. Have you ever heard of someone going crazy and shooting 30 people dead in Arizona? No, because he'd shoot one person and everyone around him would draw their pistols and defend themselves. The problem borders on state and federal laws. Because the lack of congruency among the two. Certain states medical marijuana is legal but you on a federal level it is a illegal and can take priority over such state laws. The constitution as a whole is fucked. The political system as a whole is sadly fucked. God could be elected for president but over 8 years you wouldn't see much change for the better. The system in place allows the president to do a lot of bad but not a whole lot of room to do any good. Half of the wars we engage in our enemies have been armed by us. Fucking Bush Senior armed the whole middle east. Not just guns, but planes, bombs, everything. Our presidents create more problems than anything else. Change isn't going to come through a president, or a constitution change, but through a complete new beginning. The United States of America is so hell bent on fear mongering, bail outs, bribery, propaganda, etc etc. It's all about money. You want to change America? I would love to have the funds to advertise and run commercials on every TV station. PURE ABSTENTION. Refuse to fuel this circus. "The power to vote" "You can change the world with your vote". All these bullshit slogans. Having the power to vote is like being a manager at Wendy's, you still leave work smelling like grease every day.
Ehhhhhhhh, not so much. The data disagrees with your argument, and while I approve the ideal, it just isn't represented by reality. The facts show that murder rates are, on average, lower in countries with strict gun control laws like England than they are in countries without them.
|
On January 18 2012 14:21 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 14:18 inamorato wrote:On January 18 2012 13:37 Probulous wrote:First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists If those are the reasons that the US does not have stricter gun control then you guys have officially gone bat-shit crazy That's paranoia to the extreme. I mean the right to weaponry must be maintained at all costs? Objectively at what point does changing the amendment becoming reasonable? How many people have to die from random shootings before it gets taken seriously. Your second point is a chicken and egg argument and can disproved by the fact that other countries have tight gun control and have not ended up in chaos (down here for example). People kill people, not guns. A statement I'm sure you've heard many times before. I don't remember murder being invented when they released the musket. You know where we see mass murder when it comes to guns? In states that restrict the right to bear arms in public. Have you ever heard of someone going crazy and shooting 30 people dead in Arizona? No, because he'd shoot one person and everyone around him would draw their pistols and defend themselves. The problem borders on state and federal laws. Because the lack of congruency among the two. Certain states medical marijuana is legal but you on a federal level it is a illegal and can take priority over such state laws. The constitution as a whole is fucked. The political system as a whole is sadly fucked. God could be elected for president but over 8 years you wouldn't see much change for the better. The system in place allows the president to do a lot of bad but not a whole lot of room to do any good. Half of the wars we engage in our enemies have been armed by us. Fucking Bush Senior armed the whole middle east. Not just guns, but planes, bombs, everything. Our presidents create more problems than anything else. Change isn't going to come through a president, or a constitution change, but through a complete new beginning. The United States of America is so hell bent on fear mongering, bail outs, bribery, propaganda, etc etc. It's all about money. You want to change America? I would love to have the funds to advertise and run commercials on every TV station. PURE ABSTENTION. Refuse to fuel this circus. "The power to vote" "You can change the world with your vote". All these bullshit slogans. Having the power to vote is like being a manager at Wendy's, you still leave work smelling like grease every day. Ehhhhhhhh, not so much. The data disagrees with your argument, and while I approve the ideal, it just isn't represented by reality. The facts show that murder rates are, on average, lower in countries with strict gun control laws like England than they are in countries without them.
You also have to consider why these murders occur too. I'm sure our drug consumption per capita is much higher than that of the other countries. This is where most of the homicides occur. Plus we have far more bloodthirsty gangs that go hand in hand with these drugs, which explains the inflated murder rate.
|
On January 18 2012 14:21 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 14:18 inamorato wrote:On January 18 2012 13:37 Probulous wrote:First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists If those are the reasons that the US does not have stricter gun control then you guys have officially gone bat-shit crazy That's paranoia to the extreme. I mean the right to weaponry must be maintained at all costs? Objectively at what point does changing the amendment becoming reasonable? How many people have to die from random shootings before it gets taken seriously. Your second point is a chicken and egg argument and can disproved by the fact that other countries have tight gun control and have not ended up in chaos (down here for example). People kill people, not guns. A statement I'm sure you've heard many times before. I don't remember murder being invented when they released the musket. You know where we see mass murder when it comes to guns? In states that restrict the right to bear arms in public. Have you ever heard of someone going crazy and shooting 30 people dead in Arizona? No, because he'd shoot one person and everyone around him would draw their pistols and defend themselves. The problem borders on state and federal laws. Because the lack of congruency among the two. Certain states medical marijuana is legal but you on a federal level it is a illegal and can take priority over such state laws. The constitution as a whole is fucked. The political system as a whole is sadly fucked. God could be elected for president but over 8 years you wouldn't see much change for the better. The system in place allows the president to do a lot of bad but not a whole lot of room to do any good. Half of the wars we engage in our enemies have been armed by us. Fucking Bush Senior armed the whole middle east. Not just guns, but planes, bombs, everything. Our presidents create more problems than anything else. Change isn't going to come through a president, or a constitution change, but through a complete new beginning. The United States of America is so hell bent on fear mongering, bail outs, bribery, propaganda, etc etc. It's all about money. You want to change America? I would love to have the funds to advertise and run commercials on every TV station. PURE ABSTENTION. Refuse to fuel this circus. "The power to vote" "You can change the world with your vote". All these bullshit slogans. Having the power to vote is like being a manager at Wendy's, you still leave work smelling like grease every day. Ehhhhhhhh, not so much. The data disagrees with your argument, and while I approve the ideal, it just isn't represented by reality. The facts show that murder rates are, on average, lower in countries with strict gun control laws like England than they are in countries without them.
Hm. Two seconds of google searching to show data that supports him. Wasn't too hard.
Gun-control advocates look at guns only as a means to harm others even though they are more often used to prevent injury. According to a 1995 study entitled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.
That means that firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to shoot with criminal intent. Of these defensive shootings, more than 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. About half a million times a year, a citizen carrying a gun away from home uses it in self-defense. Again, according to Kleck amd Gertz, “Citizens shoot and kill more criminals than police do every year [2,819 times versus 303].” Moreover, as George Will pointed out in an article entitled “Are We a Nation of Cowards?” in the November 15, 1993, issue of Newsweek, while police have an error rate of 11 percent when it comes to the accidental shooting of innocent civilians, the armed citizens’ error rate is only 2 percent, making them five times safer than police.
Other studies give similar results. “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,” by the Clinton administration’s Justice Department shows that between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States use a firearm to defend themselves and others from criminals each year. A 1986 study by Hart Research Associates puts the upper limit at 3.2 million.
Those studies and others indicate that often the mere sight of a firearm discourages an attacker. Criminologist John Lott from the University of Florida found that 98 percent of the time when people use guns defensively, simply brandishing a firearm is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack. Lott also found that in less than 2 percent of the cases is the gun fired, and three-fourths of those are warning shots.
After passage of the 1968 gun-control act, the number of robberies jumped from 138,000 in 1965 to 376,000 in 1972, while murders committed with guns increased from 5,015 to 10,379 in the same period. According to the Census Bureau, the proportion of cases in which the murder weapon was a firearm rose from 57.2 percent to 65.6 percent.
What about the experience of other countries? In 1997, just 12 months after a new gun law went into effect in Australia, homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies 44 percent, and assaults 8.6 percent. In the state of Victoria, homicides went up 300 percent. Before the law was passed, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms. In 1998, in the state of South Australia, robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 percent. In 1999, the assault rate in New South Wales rose almost 20 percent.
In England, which has the strictest gun-control laws of the developed nations and which had outlawed all handguns and most firearms, the Sunday Express of June 20, 1999, reported,
“In recent months there have been a frightening number of shootings in Britain’s major cities, despite new laws [Firearms Act of 1997] banning gun ownership after the Dunblane tragedy. Our investigation established that guns are available through means open to any criminally minded individual.”
The Manchester Guardian of January 14, 1999, lamented that their city was being called “Gunchester.” Police sources were quoted as saying that guns had become “almost a fashion accessory” among young criminals. Some gangs are armed with fully automatic weapons. The police risk confronting teenagers on mountain bikes brandishing machine guns. A 1971 Cambridge University study showed that in heavily gun-controlled Great Britain, “the use of firearms in crime was very much less before 1920 when Britain had no controls of any sort.”
In fact, crime has increased so much in Australia, Canada, and Britain, all of which have strict gun-control laws, that the Wall Street Journal has since reported that the crime rate for burglary in America is now substantially lower than in those three countries.
|
On January 18 2012 14:01 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 13:37 Probulous wrote:First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists If those are the reasons that the US does not have stricter gun control then you guys have officially gone bat-shit crazy That's paranoia to the extreme. I mean the right to weaponry must be maintained at all costs? Objectively at what point does changing the amendment becoming reasonable? How many people have to die from random shootings before it gets taken seriously. Your second point is a chicken and egg argument and can disproved by the fact that other countries have tight gun control and have not ended up in chaos (down here for example). How many people must die from car related accidents before there is an amendment banning motor vehicles? There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.Gun stats: The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.Perhaps the real reason there aren't stricter gun control laws has to do with the lack of sensationalism with regard to making decisions and the high value placed on personal freedoms and personal responsibility, as well as the understanding that the single most vital and inalienable right that any human being has in this world is the right to defend themselves and their loved ones from harm.
I think you are making a case against the way driving licenses are granted rather than argument for the second amendment. USA has the lead in number of car-related deaths and accidents per capita by far. A couple of points regarding your analogy;
1. Almost none of those car accidents actually would qualify as a murder. If you are making a case that the constitution should ban car accidents, why stop there? it should ban accidents of any kind. That's a totally ridiculous argument, almost as ludicrous as your analogy.
2. Why the 12,636 homicide gun-related deaths matter? because most industrialized nations don't even reach a hundred in that category.
|
All this gun debate is completely derailing this thread.
There is a lot of development in the election dymanics in the US guys, Lets get back on track
|
On January 18 2012 14:21 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 14:18 inamorato wrote:On January 18 2012 13:37 Probulous wrote:First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists If those are the reasons that the US does not have stricter gun control then you guys have officially gone bat-shit crazy That's paranoia to the extreme. I mean the right to weaponry must be maintained at all costs? Objectively at what point does changing the amendment becoming reasonable? How many people have to die from random shootings before it gets taken seriously. Your second point is a chicken and egg argument and can disproved by the fact that other countries have tight gun control and have not ended up in chaos (down here for example). People kill people, not guns. A statement I'm sure you've heard many times before. I don't remember murder being invented when they released the musket. You know where we see mass murder when it comes to guns? In states that restrict the right to bear arms in public. Have you ever heard of someone going crazy and shooting 30 people dead in Arizona? No, because he'd shoot one person and everyone around him would draw their pistols and defend themselves. The problem borders on state and federal laws. Because the lack of congruency among the two. Certain states medical marijuana is legal but you on a federal level it is a illegal and can take priority over such state laws. The constitution as a whole is fucked. The political system as a whole is sadly fucked. God could be elected for president but over 8 years you wouldn't see much change for the better. The system in place allows the president to do a lot of bad but not a whole lot of room to do any good. Half of the wars we engage in our enemies have been armed by us. Fucking Bush Senior armed the whole middle east. Not just guns, but planes, bombs, everything. Our presidents create more problems than anything else. Change isn't going to come through a president, or a constitution change, but through a complete new beginning. The United States of America is so hell bent on fear mongering, bail outs, bribery, propaganda, etc etc. It's all about money. You want to change America? I would love to have the funds to advertise and run commercials on every TV station. PURE ABSTENTION. Refuse to fuel this circus. "The power to vote" "You can change the world with your vote". All these bullshit slogans. Having the power to vote is like being a manager at Wendy's, you still leave work smelling like grease every day. Ehhhhhhhh, not so much. The data disagrees with your argument, and while I approve the ideal, it just isn't represented by reality. The facts show that murder rates are, on average, lower in countries with strict gun control laws like England than they are in countries without them.
I'm REALLY sorry that you believe murder rate in England and other countries are lower just because of gun control laws.
It's sad that you take into consideration one factor concerning murder rates. This argument cannot be discussed any further with you because it would force you to expand your mind, but I can suggest this. Murder isn't exclusively contingent on gun laws. Broaden your horizon and take into consideration the other factors that may be in effect as well.
|
On January 18 2012 14:21 Falling wrote:
See I understand fighting over long guns- they're mostly used for hunting and that's mostly what I see the use for guns. I will concede handguns because it's America and so many are concerned about protection. But semi-automatic and automatic weapons? Where do you draw the line?
Because realistically, if your government does to turn, they would have to have control of the army. And I fail to see what isolated, unorganized, untrained citizen 'soldiers' will do against that. The value of citizen soldiers has been over-rated- part of the North American mythos. The British hated the colonist militias and preferred their Aboriginal allies because the militia had a tendency to run away. Training and battle experience is pretty key.
So what do the citizens need to protect themselves? Tanks? Jets? Missiles and control of the satellites for reconaissance? If the goal is to fight your government, there is such a preponderance of power that I don't really see how it would be possible. Better to stop it before it comes to arms and avoid potential vigilantism where some demagogue whips up heavily armed radicals against a perceived threat to liberties. (Perceived due to partisan rhetoric rather than an actual threat to liberties.)
In America, the line's drawn at automatic firearms that had their receivers stamped before 1984. With the proper permits, you can also buy grenade launchers, plastic explosives, etc. You can even own tanks and license the tank gun if you have enough private property and have a clean record. Of course, not all of this applies to every state, states make their own laws on top of federal ones.
You can also manufacture your own weapons as long as they hold to federal standards. Weapons you make yourself are not subject to licensing, I think. You'd have to check on that.
In the case of rebellion...we probably have enough semi-automatic AK47s and other assault weapons to arm a small country. And it's not like it's particularly difficult to modify most of the popular semi-automatic assault weaponry to full auto, you can Google the instructions easily.
Opinion:
Tanks and jets and missiles can crush militias. But tanks and jets and missiles and all the other technological marvels to date cannot do the one thing that must be done to crush a rebellion; hold ground. You will always need infantry to hold cities and other sources of dissent. And as long as you can kill the infantry, you can win the rebellion. Plus, in just rebellions, large chunks of the army would probably defect or refuse to fight; our army is made of volunteers.
Granted, the K:D ratio would be horribly lopsided. But it's not like the technologically-inferior places we've fought in have had trouble with that, not with proper motivation.
|
On January 18 2012 14:12 GreenManalishi wrote:
I didn't realize American police were immortal.
What? When did I imply that they were? I think you misunderstood something.
I don't see the logical progression from 'ban of video games that have too much gore' to a government with tighter restrictions. It isn't even like the American media is particularly liberal, when was the last time you saw boobs on television?
I'm not necessary disagreeing with the premise that the USA has a less controlling government, but your examples seem to be somewhat irrelevant.
Whether or not boobs should be allowed on television has been under debate for a long time. It all comes down to whether or not nudity on TV is interpreted to be protected by the first amendment, and at the moment, it is not considered to be. If you don't understand the connection between banning certain video games and the government overstepping their bounds, then it's not really worth discussing things with you. If my "examples seem somewhat irrelevant", there is something missing in your understanding of the situation.
|
On January 18 2012 14:20 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. For the record, we're so far past the point of defending ourselves from the government run military that such a concept is hilarious. Declaring a rebellion on the government became an obsolete concept when our government gained technology that made it inconceivable (like really big bombs as just an example).
Our military is run by volunteers. What makes you think that they would bomb their own country? It's far more likely that most of the military would join the rebellion or just refuse to kill their own people. If you think that "such a concept is hilarious", then I find your horrible lack of understanding of this situation to be "hilarious."
|
I find it odd that so many people think it inconceivable that the government might do something that would invoke rebellion. Let us not forget the horrors of many governments in the past, many less than a century ago. Some of which disarmed their citizens.
It would never happen.... paranoia.... but say there's a terrorist threat and we need to go into "wartime military conditions" for our own "safety." Seems like we've been doing that a lot lately.
|
On January 18 2012 15:18 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 14:20 Whitewing wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. For the record, we're so far past the point of defending ourselves from the government run military that such a concept is hilarious. Declaring a rebellion on the government became an obsolete concept when our government gained technology that made it inconceivable (like really big bombs as just an example). Our military is run by volunteers. What makes you think that they would bomb their own country? It's far more likely that most of the military would join the rebellion or just refuse to kill their own people. If you think that "such a concept is hilarious", then I find your horrible lack of understanding of this situation to be "hilarious."
I think his point, and one that I concur with, is that the deadliest weapons use a technology that is so far ahead of what is sold in gun stores today that there is pretty much nothing you can do about it. Watching a bunch of rednecks charging, rifles in hand, against remotely controlled tanks and drones would be worse than watching a scene of the last samurai...
|
On January 18 2012 16:25 s4life wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 15:18 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 14:20 Whitewing wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. For the record, we're so far past the point of defending ourselves from the government run military that such a concept is hilarious. Declaring a rebellion on the government became an obsolete concept when our government gained technology that made it inconceivable (like really big bombs as just an example). Our military is run by volunteers. What makes you think that they would bomb their own country? It's far more likely that most of the military would join the rebellion or just refuse to kill their own people. If you think that "such a concept is hilarious", then I find your horrible lack of understanding of this situation to be "hilarious." I think his point, and one that I concur with, is that the deadliest weapons use a technology that is so far ahead of what is sold in gun stores today that there is pretty much nothing you can do about it. Watching a bunch of rednecks charging, rifles in hand, against remotely controlled tanks and drones would be worse than watching a scene of the last samurai...
You understand nothing.
|
Tax analysts say Romney may have good reason to be reluctant to release his returns.
His vast fortune is invested in dozens of funds linked to Bain Capital LLC, the powerhouse private equity firm he co-founded and led for 15 years. Several Bain funds have offshore connections and take advantage of tax breaks used only by the U.S. financial elite.
His tax returns could shed light on how Romney and Bain use offshore strategies to avoid taxes, said Daniel Berman, a former U.S. Treasury deputy international tax counsel and now director of tax at Boston University's graduate tax program.
Bain funds in which Romney is invested are scattered from Delaware to the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, Ireland and Hong Kong, according to a Reuters analysis of securities filings.
"Certain interests in foreign investment structures would have to be reported on attachments to his return," Berman said.
On capital gains, Romney's tax returns would not reveal any gains that he has not yet realized, even though those gains would be easy for him to lock in at any time, Berman said.
"I remember as a young lawyer being surprised to see tax returns of very successful investors showing net losses - because they were recognizing net losses" but not yet factoring in unrealized gains, Berman said.
Source
|
Source
If Romney and The Guardian are accurate, he's probably sheltering most of his income as long-term capital gains.
|
Something I found interesting in the last debate was that all of the candidates said they were upset with the way Super PACs were able to run commercials and such without interaction, leading to inaccurate commercials, etc etc. Their solution to this problem was that they should be able to run the Super PACs themselves, or that the Super PACs should be done away with, and their own campaigns should be able to receive unlimited money from anywhere.
It is amazing that in less than two years we have gone from it being illegal for corporations to finance political campaigns from their coffers to it being legal, as long as it is through a group independent from the candidate itself, and now the candidates want the money in their own control, which is essentially allowing corporations to directly fund (some would call bribe) political candidates, to no limit.
Though I guess as Romney stated, 'Corporations are people, my friend' Have to feel bad for shareholders of portfolios of companies dumping money into campaigns that would otherwise be shareholder profit.
|
Canada11268 Posts
@acker.
Well granted (need infantry to hold ground and portions of the army would probably rebel.) But if there is a line drawn, that the argument can't simply be that people are fighting against gun control because they need to protect themselves from the government at all costs. There appears to be a limit (although I find it odd that you can purchase tanks and the like- can they still fire?) There is some notion that private citizens cannot have unlimited access to modern military grade weapons.
And it just seems ease of access to weapons that can mow down weapons is a bad and overkill for self-defence purposes (for home invasion for instance.)
On January 18 2012 15:18 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 14:20 Whitewing wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. For the record, we're so far past the point of defending ourselves from the government run military that such a concept is hilarious. Declaring a rebellion on the government became an obsolete concept when our government gained technology that made it inconceivable (like really big bombs as just an example). Our military is run by volunteers. What makes you think that they would bomb their own country? It's far more likely that most of the military would join the rebellion or just refuse to kill their own people. If you think that "such a concept is hilarious", then I find your horrible lack of understanding of this situation to be "hilarious."
Then quiet frankly I find your doomsday need to protect yourself against your government rather redundant. I probably agree that the military would join in. I just don't see this tyranny happening anytime soon (although some of your recent 'security' laws seem rather terrible.
But if the military is joining in this uprising against the government- who is exactly are you fighting that you need this great arsenal of weapons? For there to be a tyranny to justify rising against it, they need to consolidate power somehow and if the military is out, what exactly are they using? You hardly need the stockpile of weaponss under this scenario. President declares himself dictator for life, army joins the rebellion and overthrows the dictator and you're done.
It seems like the argument is to stockpile vast mountains of weapons for some far-off theoretical future where America might turn into a dictatorship. In the meantime assault weapons proliferate across America making it much easier for a mass slaying. Hunters need guns, Americans like their sidearms, Criminals will get their weapons anyways, but it's mostly all those semi-automatic and automatic weapons that I think encourages vigilantism where other guns would be equally effective for self protection. It just certain weapons have greater potential for wiping out a whole group of people all at once.
But seriously, your hypothotical tyranny makes no sense if the military opposes the government as well.
|
On January 18 2012 16:34 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 16:25 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 15:18 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 14:20 Whitewing wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. For the record, we're so far past the point of defending ourselves from the government run military that such a concept is hilarious. Declaring a rebellion on the government became an obsolete concept when our government gained technology that made it inconceivable (like really big bombs as just an example). Our military is run by volunteers. What makes you think that they would bomb their own country? It's far more likely that most of the military would join the rebellion or just refuse to kill their own people. If you think that "such a concept is hilarious", then I find your horrible lack of understanding of this situation to be "hilarious." I think his point, and one that I concur with, is that the deadliest weapons use a technology that is so far ahead of what is sold in gun stores today that there is pretty much nothing you can do about it. Watching a bunch of rednecks charging, rifles in hand, against remotely controlled tanks and drones would be worse than watching a scene of the last samurai... You understand nothing.
Quite the contrary...
If the reasoning behind the Second Amendment is to ensure the government cannot disarm its citizens and thereby creating a situation in which the government can always be overthrown by popular uprising, that logic and reasoning is no longer applicable in the modern world. If the idea of collective security is to be taken seriously, it would have to entail weapons capable of defeating government weapons to be held by the people, which they certainly aren't, and which few rational people would support.
|
This debate about gun control is preposterous, as long as there is a black market for guns ( and it is everywhere ), making tight gun control laws is a simple mockery and "fuck you" by the government to the law abiding citizens. Again, as I said like 20 pages ago...Gun control laws will only limit common people's ability to defend themselves against the bad guys who get guns without regard to the law.
The people vs the government ? 2 serious problems : The soldiers must be really brainwashed to commit act of violence against their own people ( But I'm sure at least 1/100 from the soldiers are ready to commit such acts ) ; The technology available to the government if it were to wage war again their own people ( which I don't see as an impossibility , the ground has been layed towards this direction little by little, sure, by politicians only who in reality have ZERO power against us the people ) is so far beyond even an m16 that you would crushed before knowing what hit you.
This debate about gun control rules ( in a society where when politicians say "Kill them" , people cheer ) is a proof of how the moderately smart people are caught in webs of irrational rationalization. We're not there yet....If we were we would use renewable energy and have the infrastructure on this planet to support over 50 billion people with not 1 single man starving or lacking cloathing or education.
|
On January 18 2012 17:49 bOneSeven wrote:
This debate about gun control is preposterous, as long as there is a black market for guns ( and it is everywhere ), making tight gun control laws is a simple mockery and "fuck you" by the government to the law abiding citizens. Again, as I said like 20 pages ago...Gun control laws will only limit common people's ability to defend themselves against the bad guys who get guns without regard to the law.
The people vs the government ? 2 serious problems : The soldiers must be really brainwashed to commit act of violence against their own people ( But I'm sure at least 1/100 from the soldiers are ready to commit such acts ) ; The technology available to the government if it were to wage war again their own people ( which I don't see as an impossibility , the ground has been layed towards this direction little by little, sure, by politicians only who in reality have ZERO power against us the people ) is so far beyond even an m16 that you would crushed before knowing what hit you.
It is not your Job to defend against the bad guys. You get the (goverment controlled) police for that. Stuff like this is one of the main reasons to actually have a goverment....
|
On January 18 2012 17:54 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 17:49 bOneSeven wrote:
This debate about gun control is preposterous, as long as there is a black market for guns ( and it is everywhere ), making tight gun control laws is a simple mockery and "fuck you" by the government to the law abiding citizens. Again, as I said like 20 pages ago...Gun control laws will only limit common people's ability to defend themselves against the bad guys who get guns without regard to the law.
The people vs the government ? 2 serious problems : The soldiers must be really brainwashed to commit act of violence against their own people ( But I'm sure at least 1/100 from the soldiers are ready to commit such acts ) ; The technology available to the government if it were to wage war again their own people ( which I don't see as an impossibility , the ground has been layed towards this direction little by little, sure, by politicians only who in reality have ZERO power against us the people ) is so far beyond even an m16 that you would crushed before knowing what hit you. It is not your Job to defend against the bad guys. You get the (goverment controlled) police for that. Stuff like this is one of the main reasons to actually have a goverment....
just because it's not your job doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
