Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On July 24 2012 10:14 ArrowInTheKnee wrote: Pretty much sums up what I think.
THERE YOU GO. Ron Paul says it best. Probably the best and most honest policitian we have in the USA who hasn't sold himself out to corporate interests like everyone else has.
Ron Paul is the most pro corporate interest politician in Washington lol. Corporations don't have to pay him because hes already so anti-regulation.
Well, I give up on this thread even though I've given some good arguments with no rebuttal.
I'll at least say this: at least the South will go down in history as the greatest militia in history if America ever gets invaded. With everything from [privately owned] Ruger 10/22's, to Ma Deuces, to miniguns, artillery, mortars, tanks and everything in between, it'd be a hell of a time for any invader.
On July 24 2012 11:02 Probulous wrote: A slightly different angle here.
Do American's think the rest of us are stupid for not wanting to carry guns? Or alternatively, why is that in the US you need to carry a weapon and not somewhere else?
"The rest of you" are free to make up your own decisions on the issue for wherever you happen to live. I don't think many of "us" care past that. It's when a persons control freak attitude goes all out and they start tell us "how shit should be" that the mud slinging starts happening.
Respect our right to make our own decisions.
Is there anything in my post that says I don't respect your decisions? I simply want to know why the rest of the world doesn't have to protect themselves with semi-automatic weapons but American's feel they have to? What is it that is so dangerous about America, or alternatively why is the rest of the world so happy to live without gun protection?
THERE YOU GO. Ron Paul says it best. Probably the best and most honest policitian we have in the USA who hasn't sold himself out to corporate interests like everyone else has.
Ron Paul is the most pro corporate interest politician in Washington lol. Corporations don't have to pay him because hes already so anti-regulation.
What you said is like calling the sky green. It's completely untrue and clearly you don't know anything about Ron Paul. Rofl. Go do some research.
On July 24 2012 11:02 Probulous wrote: A slightly different angle here.
Do American's think the rest of us are stupid for not wanting to carry guns? Or alternatively, why is that in the US you need to carry a weapon and not somewhere else?
"The rest of you" are free to make up your own decisions on the issue for wherever you happen to live. I don't think many of "us" care past that. It's when a persons control freak attitude goes all out and they start tell us "how shit should be" that the mud slinging starts happening.
Respect our right to make our own decisions.
Is there anything in my post that says I don't respect your decisions? I simply want to know why the rest of the world doesn't have to protect themselves with semi-automatic weapons but American's feel they have to? What is it that is so dangerous about America, or alternatively why is the rest of the world so happy to live without gun protection?
That's a fair question.
Seriously, the manner in which some gun advocates are arguing gives the impression that America is at the point of no return, that crime is rampant or likely to happen at any place, that their government is wholly corrupt, completely oppressive yet entirely ineffective, and that only private gun ownership can protect their personal safety.
I've been to the states. I haven't been everywhere. But most of the places I've been to are really quite pleasant and nice.
THERE YOU GO. Ron Paul says it best. Probably the best and most honest policitian we have in the USA who hasn't sold himself out to corporate interests like everyone else has.
Ron Paul is the most pro corporate interest politician in Washington lol. Corporations don't have to pay him because hes already so anti-regulation.
Actually Ron Paul is pro-Capitalism not pro-Corporatism. You obviously know nothing of his philosophy.
On July 24 2012 11:02 Probulous wrote: A slightly different angle here.
Do American's think the rest of us are stupid for not wanting to carry guns? Or alternatively, why is that in the US you need to carry a weapon and not somewhere else?
"The rest of you" are free to make up your own decisions on the issue for wherever you happen to live. I don't think many of "us" care past that. It's when a persons control freak attitude goes all out and they start tell us "how shit should be" that the mud slinging starts happening.
Respect our right to make our own decisions.
Is there anything in my post that says I don't respect your decisions? I simply want to know why the rest of the world doesn't have to protect themselves with semi-automatic weapons but American's feel they have to? What is it that is so dangerous about America, or alternatively why is the rest of the world so happy to live without gun protection?
It's funny, I was trying to think of other countries that love the freedom of gun ownership, and where people probably benefit more from having semi-automatic weapons than not.
THERE YOU GO. Ron Paul says it best. Probably the best and most honest policitian we have in the USA who hasn't sold himself out to corporate interests like everyone else has.
Funnily enough, the weapon corporation is probably the biggest. And they certainly don't have any interest in stricter gun control.
THERE YOU GO. Ron Paul says it best. Probably the best and most honest policitian we have in the USA who hasn't sold himself out to corporate interests like everyone else has.
Funnily enough, the weapon corporation is probably the biggest. And they certainly don't have any interest in stricter gun control.
What does that have to with anything? Ron Paul supports the 2nd amendment from the Bill of Rights. Which was long in place before major gun corporations and before Ron Paul was ever born. For you to make a post like that just shows another person who doesn't have a clue who Ron Paul is and what he stands for.
I support the 2nd Amendment, I guess I'm being paid by gun corporations too right? Rofl.
On July 24 2012 11:02 Probulous wrote: A slightly different angle here.
Do American's think the rest of us are stupid for not wanting to carry guns? Or alternatively, why is that in the US you need to carry a weapon and not somewhere else?
"The rest of you" are free to make up your own decisions on the issue for wherever you happen to live. I don't think many of "us" care past that. It's when a persons control freak attitude goes all out and they start tell us "how shit should be" that the mud slinging starts happening.
Respect our right to make our own decisions.
Is there anything in my post that says I don't respect your decisions? I simply want to know why the rest of the world doesn't have to protect themselves with semi-automatic weapons but American's feel they have to? What is it that is so dangerous about America, or alternatively why is the rest of the world so happy to live without gun protection?
It's funny, I was trying to think of other countries that love the freedom of gun ownership, and where people probably benefit more from having semi-automatic weapons than not.
Somalia? Pakistan?
What governments benefit from having these weapons if at all? So you're ok with govnerments having them but not people when governments are merely a representation of the people.
THERE YOU GO. Ron Paul says it best. Probably the best and most honest policitian we have in the USA who hasn't sold himself out to corporate interests like everyone else has.
Funnily enough, the weapon corporation is probably the biggest. And they certainly don't have any interest in stricter gun control.
What does that have to with anything? Ron Paul supports the 2nd amendment from the Bill of Rights. Which was long in place before major gun corporations and before Ron Paul was ever born. For you to make a post that just shows another person who doesn't have a clue who Ron Paul is and what he stands for.
Haha, I wasn't saying Ron Paul is under the cup of the weapon industry. Just saying that he defends their interests anyway. And I know quite a lot about Ron Paul, I like his foreign policy. But his economics, meh. I don't know the price of a semi-auto rifle, but I'm pretty sure I know who is winning from being authorized to sell it.
And again the 2nd amendment is pretty vague, and can be considered outdated. But then again it's like the bible, everyone interprets it like he wants.
On July 24 2012 11:02 Probulous wrote: A slightly different angle here.
Do American's think the rest of us are stupid for not wanting to carry guns? Or alternatively, why is that in the US you need to carry a weapon and not somewhere else?
"The rest of you" are free to make up your own decisions on the issue for wherever you happen to live. I don't think many of "us" care past that. It's when a persons control freak attitude goes all out and they start tell us "how shit should be" that the mud slinging starts happening.
Respect our right to make our own decisions.
Is there anything in my post that says I don't respect your decisions? I simply want to know why the rest of the world doesn't have to protect themselves with semi-automatic weapons but American's feel they have to? What is it that is so dangerous about America, or alternatively why is the rest of the world so happy to live without gun protection?
It's funny, I was trying to think of other countries that love the freedom of gun ownership, and where people probably benefit more from having semi-automatic weapons than not.
Somalia? Pakistan?
What governments benefit from having these weapons if at all? So you're ok with govnerments having them but not people when governments are merely a representation of the people.
That's the main difference between Europe and the US (even if it's getting worse in Europe), democracy is all about representing the citizens. It's never perfect, but 50% of participation in the US presidential conduct to a big loss of legitimity of the government. Hence less trust.
THERE YOU GO. Ron Paul says it best. Probably the best and most honest policitian we have in the USA who hasn't sold himself out to corporate interests like everyone else has.
Funnily enough, the weapon corporation is probably the biggest. And they certainly don't have any interest in stricter gun control.
What does that have to with anything? Ron Paul supports the 2nd amendment from the Bill of Rights. Which was long in place before major gun corporations and before Ron Paul was ever born. For you to make a post that just shows another person who doesn't have a clue who Ron Paul is and what he stands for.
Haha, I wasn't saying Ron Paul is under the cup of the weapon industry. Just saying that he defends their interests anyway. And I know quite a lot about Ron Paul, I like his foreign policy. But his economics, meh. I don't know the price of a semi-auto rifle, but I'm pretty sure I know who is winning from being authorized to sell it.
And again the 2nd amendment is pretty vague, and can be considered outdated. But then again it's like the bible, everyone interprets it like he wants.
It's not outdated. The Founding Fathers put it in place so that if the government got out of control and started oppressing the people, the people could fight back with their guns and overthrow if necessary. Sure the military has tanks, fighter jets, etc but guns are better than no guns. Americans won their freedom in the American Revolution from an oppressive government with guns in the first place. Would be stupid to give up that right. Selling guns is not evil like you make it sound, unless they are selling it to the wrong people (like terrorists) who use them for evil purposes.
On July 24 2012 11:02 Probulous wrote: A slightly different angle here.
Do American's think the rest of us are stupid for not wanting to carry guns? Or alternatively, why is that in the US you need to carry a weapon and not somewhere else?
"The rest of you" are free to make up your own decisions on the issue for wherever you happen to live. I don't think many of "us" care past that. It's when a persons control freak attitude goes all out and they start tell us "how shit should be" that the mud slinging starts happening.
Respect our right to make our own decisions.
Is there anything in my post that says I don't respect your decisions? I simply want to know why the rest of the world doesn't have to protect themselves with semi-automatic weapons but American's feel they have to? What is it that is so dangerous about America, or alternatively why is the rest of the world so happy to live without gun protection?
It's funny, I was trying to think of other countries that love the freedom of gun ownership, and where people probably benefit more from having semi-automatic weapons than not.
Somalia? Pakistan?
What governments benefit from having these weapons if at all? So you're ok with govnerments having them but not people when governments are merely a representation of the people.
That's the main difference between Europe and the US (even if it's getting worse in Europe), democracy is all about representing the citizens. It's never perfect, but 50% of participation in the US presidential conduct to a big loss of legitimity of the government. Hence less trust.
For the benefits, police and military force.
I actually believe it's under %50 participation when it comes to elections, which is pretty sad. Being able to vote in a so-called "democracy" is a right people shouldn't take for granted.
And as we know, the military and police force can be abusive and use weapons to murder just like people can. Yet so one is calling for them to lose their rights. They are supposed to work for the people.
When was the last time the police or military opened fire on the civilian population with semi automatic weapons? The gain extra rights by being police officers. For example they have the right to arrest you if you commit a crime. Should you have that right? Come on, governments represent the people, they are not the people. There is a distinction and thus there is room for different standards.
On July 24 2012 11:02 Probulous wrote: A slightly different angle here.
Do American's think the rest of us are stupid for not wanting to carry guns? Or alternatively, why is that in the US you need to carry a weapon and not somewhere else?
"The rest of you" are free to make up your own decisions on the issue for wherever you happen to live. I don't think many of "us" care past that. It's when a persons control freak attitude goes all out and they start tell us "how shit should be" that the mud slinging starts happening.
Respect our right to make our own decisions.
Is there anything in my post that says I don't respect your decisions? I simply want to know why the rest of the world doesn't have to protect themselves with semi-automatic weapons but American's feel they have to? What is it that is so dangerous about America, or alternatively why is the rest of the world so happy to live without gun protection?
It's funny, I was trying to think of other countries that love the freedom of gun ownership, and where people probably benefit more from having semi-automatic weapons than not.
Somalia? Pakistan?
What governments benefit from having these weapons if at all? So you're ok with govnerments having them but not people when governments are merely a representation of the people.
That's the main difference between Europe and the US (even if it's getting worse in Europe), democracy is all about representing the citizens. It's never perfect, but 50% of participation in the US presidential conduct to a big loss of legitimity of the government. Hence less trust.
For the benefits, police and military force.
I actually believe it's under %50 participation when it comes to elections, which is pretty sad. Being able to vote in a so-called "democracy" is a right people shouldn't take for granted.
And as we know, the military and police force can be abusive and use weapons to murder just like people can. Yet so one is calling for them to lose their rights. They are supposed to work for the people.
While compulsory democracy might seem like an oxymoron, it does actually work to keep people votingin Australia even when they feel disillusioned. The penalty there for not showing up to a polling station or filling in a postal vote is a fine. To bring this system in anywhere it isn't currently, you would need to be dedicated to the ideal actual representation of all the people in the country and charismatic about it.
When was the last time the police or military opened fire on the civilian population with semi automatic weapons? The gain extra rights by being police officers. For example they have the right to arrest you if you commit a crime. Should you have that right? Come on, governments represent the people, they are not the people. There is a distinction and thus there is room for different standards.
"When was the last time the police or military opened fire on the civilian population with semi automatic weapons?" I guess you haven't heard of all the shooting sprees some US soldiers have done in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. on the civilians there. You can go look it up yourself and learn something. I suppose you haven't heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting either. Perhaps one of the reasons you haven't is that US citizens can own firearms. You missed my point which is wheher it's government or people, both can abuse weapon rights and murder. That's just how it is on this planet unfortunately. The 2nd Amendment has a purpose which is 1)US citizens can own firearms for self defense 2)US citizens as a whole can own weapons as a way to fight government oppression if the government ever needed to be overthrown if it got out of hand. It's that way so a country of people never become the victim of an oppressive government. And there have been many examples, Jews in Nazi Germany, 6 million of them executed, none had the right to own guns and fight back. German citizens were not allowed to own firearms in Nazi Germany, etc.
When was the last time the police or military opened fire on the civilian population with semi automatic weapons? The gain extra rights by being police officers. For example they have the right to arrest you if you commit a crime. Should you have that right? Come on, governments represent the people, they are not the people. There is a distinction and thus there is room for different standards.
Actually, one of the main goals of America was government by the people, for the people. Not only does the government represent the people, it is composed of the people (in theory).
I don't think your argument that the people don't need guns because the military doesn't open fire on civilians is very strong. The military hasn't done that yet, but that doesn't mean that it may in the future. Nuclear weapons haven't been used in warfare for almost 70 years, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be scared of them. The same goes for personal weaponry and the military: the military has never acted outside the obvious interest of the American people (save Vietnam ), but that doesn't mean that it may in the future. If you criminalize gun ownership, then by the time an oppressive leadership does come in to power, you will be powerless to stop it.
I tend to be pretty liberal in my political views but I honestly don't understand the desire to limit gun ownership. Obviously loophole laws that allow criminals to acquire powerful equipment like what happened with the Aurora shooter need to be fixed, but I think people should certainly have the right to own personal weapons.
Less societal violence, especially with concerns to violent crimes.
So the question isn't so much should we or should we not remove guns, it is how do we lower violent crime rates. Yes, many countries have done this by removing a lot of guns out of the population, but there are other countries that have high weapon owning households that have very low rates of violent crimes, Switzerland being one of them.
So, with a country like America where gun ownership is huge, and the removal of guns/super strict control of guns is highly unlikely, what can a country like America do, to replicate the similar gun culture of Switzerland along with the lower rates of violent crimes?
I think the easiest answer would simply be education. A lot of gun owners in Switzerland are ex military, due to conscription, ergo they understand the dangers of firearms, and ergo learning to respect the usage of firearms. Now obviously I'm not suggesting conscription in America, but I am suggesting a education infrastructure for those who want to own/use fire arms.
EPT
), but that doesn't mean that it may in the future. If you criminalize gun ownership, then by the time an oppressive leadership does come in to power, you will be powerless to stop it. 
