NationStates Jolt Archive

Someone should not be forced to uproot themselves and potentially make a lot of life-altering decisions because the police are not performing their job correctly, Bucksnort.

Didn't say they SHOULD. Merely pointing out an option...one that worked for ME.

Unless the legal system can proactively guarantee her safety at all times without interfering with anyone else's legal rights, I won't change my position.

That level of safety would require the implementation of a police state the likes of which have never been seen in history.

The gun is simpler, cheaper, and probably more effective.

Bucksnort, my wife and I moved from state to state trying to get away from this guy.

He's not going to give up until he's dead. He's said as much. But he's staying away for the first time (for two years now), because he's afraid of us now.

Bucksnort, please stop flaming. Everyone else too. Seriously, dolt ain't that bad compared to murderer. Here's my posisition, shotguns, rifles, bows, yes. Pistols, I dunno can you use a pistol to hunt? If not than no. There really isn't any need for non-hunting guns, and pistols? well how do most murdered people die? A rifle will work just as well for self defence. In regard to what's his name's question about what killed his friend, Of course it was a pistol! fyi assault weapons were um banned.

Pistols can be used to hunt. The reason behind the second amendment, PoL, wasn't for hunting. It was for defense against both internal and external threats.

AK-47s are heavily regulated, they weren't banned. Same goes for any full-auto or select fire weapon. Have been since the mid 1930s.

We don't know that it was a pistol that was used to kill her friend. She hasn't said. It could have been a shotgun, rifle, or any other type of firearm. We don't know, which is why I asked.

Fair enough, Bucksnort and My Gun Not Yours, thanks for answering.

Well, then, why doesn't she MOVE??? As in, out of state, no forwarding address? I did that to escape a stalker, and you know what? To this day he hasn't found me. It's been eight years now. I doubt he even thinks about me anymore.

Ah, so now the criminal doesn't have to do anything, and the law abiding citizen has to MOVE to fix the problem?

Oh yeah, that's logical.

HEY, who asked you to stick YOUR oar in?? How about YOU publicly rebuke Roach Cliff for flaming ME!! I never DIRECTLY called him a murderer...but he damn well TWICE directly flamed me...once, calling me "idiot" and the second time, calling me "dolt!" And yet you rebuke ME?? What sort of shit is this?

The rest fo us not falling for your double standards?

Didn't say they SHOULD. Merely pointing out an option...one that worked for ME.

And he was pointing out a solution that worked for him, but you didn't like it.

I don't get background checks. If someone is so dangerous that it is illegal to sell them a gun then why are they allowed to roam free at all? Anyone who would fail a background check probably ought to be in jail or a hospital.

Ah, but I never called him SPECIFICALLY a murderer. How about my lesbian friend who was killed? Some people called her a "child molester" just because she was gay. They did it by making comparisons.
I made a comparison. If my comparison bothered you, perhaps it's because the shoe was a bit too comfortable?

Honestly, if you worry about what someone who doesn't even know you really thinks...I have severe doubts about your ability, and suitability...to carry firearms.

After all, someone just might make one of those comparions to your face...and judging by your style here, I'd say that would lead to a heated exchange, that could escalate into gunfire.

The people making the comparison of your homosexual friend were every bit as wrong as you are for making the same type of comparison about people who own and use firearms for enjoyment or defence. They were wrong, and so are you.

I, personally, also don't appreciate your brand of slippery slope arguments. I didn't yell, or scream or get angry. I simply don't think you have the slightest inkling of what this issue is about or entails. Now that I know there is a legal definition for idiot, I will retract my statement branding you as such. However, I stick by my statement that you do not know what you're talking about when it comes to guns or the gun control issue.

I would also like to address what happened to your friend. Anytime a person is murdered it is a tradgedy. Especially if that person was murdered for being different. I say 'different' and not 'gay' because there are many other people who have been singled out and either abused or murdered because they fell outside the norm. I also challenge you to find a group in history that has not been chased or persecuted for ideals, culture or beliefs. I really am deeply sorry for your loss, and you definitely have a distinct event to color your view, but what you refuse to acknowlege, at least from what I've read, is that there was a person behind the gun that murdered your friend. It wasn't a gunshot that was the cause of death for Matthew Sheppard, and it probably wasn't a gunshot that caused the death of Teena Brandon (even though she was shot at some point), but in both cases, there were people who took it upon themselves to do something horrible and evil, without regard for anyone but thier own drunken selves, regardless of what tool was used.

You, sir, were the first one to launch a direct personal attack, calling ME an idiot. You haven't a leg to stand on here. So stop acting all morally superior.

When you lumped me, and just about everyone here into the group of people capable of unprovoked, cold blooded murder, you had better believe I, and probably every other person here took it personally.

I do my very best to love, care for, and yes, protect those in my charge, and the people who try to do them or myself harm will be held responsible for thier actions, not the machines that don't know any better. I will also take to task people (like yourself) who attempt to malign or slander or demean those people and principles I uphold as important.

I have, and continue to hold dear that all people should be treated with kindness and compassion, and that people have an obligation to help, and not harm the people around them. In every case in comes down to people, not things. That I am willing to take responsibility for myself, and demand that those around me do the same, does, in fact, make me morally superior.

HEY, who asked you to stick YOUR oar in?? How about YOU publicly rebuke Roach Cliff for flaming ME!! I never DIRECTLY called him a murderer...but he damn well TWICE directly flamed me...once, calling me "idiot" and the second time, calling me "dolt!" And yet you rebuke ME?? What sort of shit is this?

I just got here, and I haven't seen that particular post. I have seen you flaming. You are now flaming me. Would you please note that I said and everyone else too. Please if you want to respond, respond to my opinions about gun control, not about flaming.

Edit: isn't this supposed to be a public forum about talking about our opinions. If you were say e-mailing and flaming each other and I "stuck my oar in" then you could be ticked off. This is a PUBLIC forum.

If I'm in my house, and someone is breaking in and coming at me, they're getting two .45s in the chest. May just knock them down, it may kill them. All I know is the threat to my house and my family is done. Their basis, REGARDLESS of what it is, for breaking in is secondary to the safety of the lives of those I love.

Really? Then you would be a murderer.

According to the law, for killing to be legally considered in self-defence, it must be an absolute last resort. If you hear someone break into your house, don't go find them with a gun. Try to hide or run away. Or stay where you are in the hopes that they will leave you alone. If they come at you with a weapon, you may shoot them.

In my case (and my wife's case) we have a protective order from the court.

All our stalker has to do is step onto the property, and we can open fire.

He knows this.

So it wouldn't be murder in that case. It would be grand and glorious relief.

*makes mental note - buy BP vest before visiting the US*

:P Just kidding.

In my case (and my wife's case) we have a protective order from the court.

All our stalker has to do is step onto the property, and we can open fire.

He knows this.

So it wouldn't be murder in that case. It would be grand and glorious relief.

I am very sad to hear about your situation MGNY, and I'm not sure what bothers me more, the fact that the police wouldn't show up if you called because he was on your property illegally, but probably would show up if he called them and said you and your wife had a dime bag of weed.
:(

Nsdalen, you don't have to worry. Civilians are statistically more likely to correctly identify a perpetrator (as opposed to police, who make a mistake 1 time in 3 each time they are involved in a shooting). Civilians are also far less likely to miss (as opposed to police, who will miss more times than they hit in combat). Civilians, who are subject to far more legal scrutiny after a shooting, kill three times as many criminals per year compared to police, and yet are justified at a far higher rate than police.

You should be more worried about being shot by police in the US. Heck, they might shoot you 19 times (out of a total of 41 shots fired) just because you're taking your wallet out of your pocket. (Amadou Diallo found this out in New York).

This sort of thing happens far more often than a Postal or School shooting.

You could, of course, get lucky, and they'll just beat you with their nightsticks or shock you with their Tasers.

Police brutatity! Police brutality!

*takes hidden video evidence to court, gets laughed out of court, goes on a vigilante revenge spree reminiscent of Hollywood blockbusters*

Ideal extreme right deer hunter: :mp5:

Here's how it breaks down:

We don't need semi-automatic assault rifles to kill animals when we are hunting. You don't need them for self defense, either. Honestly, you can kill someone in self defense with the cheapest 9mm you can find, so an assault rifle being used as "protection" is complete and utter crap. Right now in Iraq, AK-47's are readily available, and from what I have seen, every other guy and his brother has an AK-47 to shoot in the air when they are in a protest in the streets or whatever the case. (oh and for gods sake PLEASE don't take everything I say literally, I am exaggerating, but the point remains the same)

So what do we need assault rifles for? There is really no point for the average citizen to need them, and really no point in denying everyone the right to own one. So what do we do then? There is no reason to deny someone an assault rifle, and no reason for anyone to need one, so we really don't have to give them away. How can we play both sides of the coin?

Background check.

So long as you aren't insane or convicted of a crime, you can buy the damn gun if you really want. Go spell out your name with holes in an old, abandoned barn for all I care. As long as it is never used by someone with a record of wrongdoing, then of course they still have the right to a gun.

Nobody wants to completely ban guns, unless you are talking about an EXTREME left nutcase (saying this while being a liberal myself) who believes in abolishing violence alltoghether. There are reasons why we don't live in a perfect society, main one being free will (for those of you who think God intended to create a perfect society, you are incorrect). Even before Adam and Eve plunged into sin, they both had the free will to disobey God, and free will to do as you please will lead to an imperfect society.

There is no way to make a perfect society by getting rid of guns. If we somehow were able to make a perfect society, then we would no longer be free people, because we would all have our decisions made for us so we all got along. It is a foolish pipedream to even consider banning all guns. According to Homeland Security, there are terrorist hiding behind every 3rd trashcan and every other lightpost, and you can bet their country let them have guns.

If you read all of this, congratulations. If not, please take some time to do so, us liberals have valid points of argument, just as conservatives do. Oh and by the way, we have liberals and conservatives because we live in a society where people don't agree, if you would like more proof that a utopia is physically impossible without the destruction of all that is human and/or animalistic behavior.

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.

Sorry if I piss someone of but you Americans is funny about you constiution because many of you belive it to be unchallegable law and a absolute trutth. Even if you with that constituitional have allowed not allowed slavery allowed aphartied then not allowed it don't allowed women to vote and allowed women to vote as some examples. Also already are you infringes the right to bear arms like for example you are not allowed to have a tank or a bazooka that is considered as sound concidirerens on the limits for the second amandment. But I think what most of your so called liberals in your country want to do is still have guns but just take some more sound thinking into it like for example limit the amount of guns, backgroundscheck and trace the guns.

Sorry if I piss someone of but you Americans is funny about you constiution because many of you belive it to be unchallegable law and a absolute trutth. Even if you with that constituitional have allowed not allowed slavery allowed aphartied then not allowed it don't allowed women to vote and allowed women to vote as some examples. Also already are you infringes the right to bear arms like for example you are not allowed to have a tank or a bazooka that is considered as sound concidirerens on the limits for the second amandment. But I think what most of your so called liberals in your country want to do is still have guns but just take some more sound thinking into it like for example limit the amount of guns, backgroundscheck and trace the guns.

The only way the Constitution can be changed is by Amendment (or removing Amendments).

Which has been done.

I suppose that other freedoms, to you, are not absolute truths. Freedom of speech, or assembly, or religion.

Most liberals in my area want to keep my wife from carrying a pistol to defend herself against a repeat of the multiple attacks on her person. She carries a pistol. Not a rocket launcher. And they want to disarm her. So she can be beaten some more.

If liberals wanted to make a move to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Second Amendment, they would be acknowledging quite directly that the 2nd Amendment IS about private ownership of firearms. I'm not sure they're going to say that, since they've spent decades saying it's not.

It's interesting that in the USA the term liberal seems to mean socialist. In Canada, the "Liberals" are the ruling party. They will pormise whatever they can to get elected. Although they are centrist. Canadian liberals have a contraversial gun regeristry law. There is no demand to get rid of guns, but the government wants to know where they are and who has them. Also, sadly, potato cannons are illegal. In Canada, people get stabbed, not shot.

The cute thing about the registration law in Canada is the pricetag. Evidently, it's going to cost several billion dollars - money that was never appropriated when they wrote the law.

Have fun trying to enforce it. Even if they do come up with the money (they can't even come up with money for their own armed forces), they'll basically turn whole sections of their society who were law abiding citizens into instant felons.

Which begs the question, why does Canada have a military at all?

I've always wondered this.
So when they slowly strip away your rights and force court mandated restrictions on Americans, you can't fight back.

Mmm, hmm, that explaisn why red states, such as Mississippi have much lower IQs than blue states.


And people wonder why the South no longer votes democrat. After years of lousy education due to poor policy, people are finally sick of it. Also, you have no way of knowing IQ levels for States on average as this kind of testing in a reliable and valid statistical sample and methodology does not exist. Education levels can be compared, but do not control for environmentmental factors such as personal choice about a way of life that elitest liberals seem to think of as inferior.

Is there any point to debating about the various types of small arms? As time goes on, the restraints based on mere paradigms of idealistic justice will become more and more restrictive to gun ownership. I'd like to point out to everyone that the point of guns was not originally made to kill people. The Chinese invented gunpowder in the 11th century with no military intent. It was not really used in war for a long time after. Hunting arquebuses and muskets were used for centuries and were virtually essential to life in most countries by the 17th century. If we look back to the definition of a gun, it is merely a tube or device out of which shrapnel is fired with explosive power. Drawing the line against certain types of guns and not others is black-and-white morality that is just not right. It's furthermore patent idiocy to believe that guns should suddenly go away in this century. Guns protect people and kill people. We may as well outlaw cars because the rate of vehicular manslaughter in accidents is so high in America. Yay, guns are gone! The world is a perfect place! Whatever... That is not the world we live in, and for my money I'm glad some people have the guts to stand up for their right to bear arms, even if I don't need one myself.


Well said.

And people wonder why the South no longer votes democrat. After years of lousy education due to poor policy, people are finally sick of it. Also, you have no way of knowing IQ levels for States on average as this kind of testing in a reliable and valid statistical sample and methodology does not exist. Education levels can be compared, but do not control for environmentmental factors such as personal choice about a way of life that elitest liberals seem to think of as inferior.
Ignore Kramers Intern, he is an extreme bigot.

The IQ red state/blue state thing is an Internet hoax.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_voter_iq.htm

Check your own IQ before posting hoaxes as the truth.

I hope you're from a red state... I'd hate to think a blue stater can't spell "explains". ;)

Seriously, that's a great Internet joke, http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
but I'd hardly call it a scientific study... (and I'm from Connecticut!).

(Note that this is based on SAT/ACT test scores... and folks whom go into the military, work a trade or a farm typically don't TAKE the SAT. There are very few farms left in CT, RI or MA these days. I dont know about other states.)


And besides, the SAT and the ACT are not IQ tests. For that you have to take the WAIS-R or the Stanford Binet or the Wechsler or some other instrument that is designed to test full-scale IQ and even then you end up with Validity problems due to test biases that limitation regarding uneducated portions of the populace.

And besides, the SAT and the ACT are not IQ tests. For that you have to take the WAIS-R or the Stanford Binet or the Wechsler or some other instrument that is designed to test full-scale IQ and even then you end up with Validity problems due to test biases that limitation regarding uneducated portions of the populace.

Wait a second, how much could intellience really come into play in the last election?

I mean really, was anyone in this country (with exception to third party voters such as myself) voting for one of the two candidates, or were they in fact voting against the other candidate.

If you know that one of the two people you don't like is going to win, what do you do?

Wait a second, how much could intellience really come into play in the last election?

I mean really, was anyone in this country (with exception to third party voters such as myself) voting for one of the two candidates, or were they in fact voting against the other candidate.

If you know that one of the two people you don't like is going to win, what do you do?

I don't know what it says about my IQ but I definitely consider that I voted for the lesser of 2 evils, than having had the opportunity to vote for someone I believed in. That is a crying shame, but it is also reality in politics, pretty much the world over, these days.

Really? Then you would be a murderer.

According to the law, for killing to be legally considered in self-defence, it must be an absolute last resort. If you hear someone break into your house, don't go find them with a gun. Try to hide or run away. Or stay where you are in the hopes that they will leave you alone. If they come at you with a weapon, you may shoot them.

In your own house, you can see what's going on. You don't know what the invader is doing.

You don't have to run and hide. You should try to find a REASONABLE method of escape, but being on the second floor of a house, you don't have any. Oh, and many states rule that if you're in your house, you don't have to retreat--you're already considered as having done so.

You also have to be in fear for yours or someone else's life.

So, yes, I can tell them to stand down, and if they charge, I can reasonably fire.

No, you can't just fire.

Step 1: Dial 911, and leave it off the hook, so everything is recorded.
Step 2: Warn the intruder to leave.
Step 3: If the intruder doesn't immediately leave, and starts to turn in your direction, you can most certainly legally fire at that time. You don't know what weapon they have, or how they are going to deploy it--especially in the dark.

No murder. All self-defense.

*makes mental note - buy BP vest before visiting the US*

:P Just kidding.

I'd suggest buying a bullet resistant vest for visits to LA, DC, Chicago, and NY. That's where most of it happens--where the general citizen is already disarmed.

I'd suggest buying a bullet resistant vest for visits to LA, DC, Chicago, and NY. That's where most of it happens--where the general citizen is already disarmed.

That would be the ironic statement of the year...I think that in those cities there are more people with than without.

Sorry if I piss someone of but you Americans is funny about you constiution because many of you belive it to be unchallegable law and a absolute trutth. Even if you with that constituitional have allowed not allowed slavery allowed aphartied then not allowed it don't allowed women to vote and allowed women to vote as some examples. Also already are you infringes the right to bear arms like for example you are not allowed to have a tank or a bazooka that is considered as sound concidirerens on the limits for the second amandment. But I think what most of your so called liberals in your country want to do is still have guns but just take some more sound thinking into it like for example limit the amount of guns, backgroundscheck and trace the guns.

Yup, we do believe it absolute truth. "We find these truths to be self-evident". Our rights deliniated in the constitution are rights beyond law. The law just reiterrates them. That's how they were created.

Free speech, the right to defend oneself from an individual or their own government, limited government, etc. They are all based on freedom, and its defense, so the government can't control the populace. The populace controls the government.

That would be the ironic statement of the year...I think that in those cities there are more people with than without.

legal owners don't exist, by and large, in those cities.

now, as for illegal ownership, I'm sure the criminals there are quite well armed. :sniper:

That would be the ironic statement of the year...I think that in those cities there are more people with than without.

Not firearms--and certainly not carried. Not legally anyway. More money, perhaps...

All the stats have shown that most of the murders committed by firearms are in the cities and states that restrict gun rights the most. Those four in particular.

Keep in mind:
In most jurisdictions, any weapon with more than 4" of sharpened edge is illegal to carry about one's person. Local statues of course will vary.


Considering that I plan on carrying in Chicago and how much of complete BS it is to get a CC license here, I don't really care.

No prob, I was just putting my $0.02... (Euro $0.0149)

Not firearms--and certainly not carried. Not legally anyway. More money, perhaps...

All the stats have shown that most of the murders committed by firearms are in the cities and states that restrict gun rights the most. Those four in particular.

Sorry, I forgot to put a ;) in, that was supposed to be a joke. I'm well aware of the link between gun restrictions and firearm related murder rates.

Here's my not funny and vary serious controversial statement: the solution to probably 90% (my own guesstimate) of the gun and violent crime problems in the USA could be solved by 1) ending the stupid, pointless and expensive 'war on drugs', and 2) abolishing the death penalty (there have been studies that show a link between higher violent crime rate in states that impose the death penalty and those that do not). and (the most controversial) 3) I think that most of the funding that is sent overseas in the form of 'foreign aid' and money wasted on exotic weapons systems could be better spent on improving our own educational and infrastructure systems.

Wow, I'm not a good conservative, am I?

Well, a consistent social conservative would want the least interference in people's private lives. So,

1. The state would get out of the marriage business, and leave it to individual religions or groups to define in their own way on their own. The state would get out of the divorce business. Property settlements and child custody/support would still be a state matter, but those problems exist outside of marriage as well.
2. The state would stop worrying about abortion. The state does not have a womb, so who cares?
3. The state would no longer regulate the sale or possession of drugs. No war on drugs, no violence on the streets. In fact, I might even provide free crack in poorer neighborhoods, to eliminate street gangs and prevent theft by drug users.
4. The state would provide for concealed carry by citizens without arrest records or mental incompetence. I would then cut back the police force, and allow for more civilian law enforcement.
5. The state would stop all foreign aid, and all payments to the UN. If everyone else in the world thinks it's such a good idea, they can pay for it.
6. The US would get out of the UN. It is a useless organization.
7. The state would stop regulating broadcast content.

Pistols can be used to hunt. The reason behind the second amendment, PoL, wasn't for hunting. It was for defense against both internal and external threats.

AK-47s are heavily regulated, they weren't banned. Same goes for any full-auto or select fire weapon. Have been since the mid 1930s.

We don't know that it was a pistol that was used to kill her friend. She hasn't said. It could have been a shotgun, rifle, or any other type of firearm. We don't know, which is why I asked.

Here in Connecticut, it is legal to hunt with a .22cal pistol for small game.
I know handgun hunting was at least somewhat popular in Eastern Washington (Kennewick area) while I was out there in the late 90s.

That'd be the National Firearms Act of 1934 (signed by FDR)
:
"The National Firearms Act of 1934, after the handgun registration provisions were deleted, was a concentrated attack on civilian ownership of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, and other relatively rare firearms that had acquired reputations as gangster weapons during the years preceding its passage. Modeled on the Harrison Narcotics Act,[32] the N.F.A. based its regulatory powers on a tax imposed on traffic in the weapons, thus generating federal jurisdiction for intrastate as well as interstate transactions. The tax rate, $200 per transfer, did not seem calculated to encourage extensive commerce in these weapon.[33] The Act also provided for the immediate registration of all covered weapons, even if illegally owned - a provision altered in 1968, after the United States Supreme Court held the 1934 provision to be an infringement on the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.[34] [Page 139]"

(it's about four "page downs" at 1024x768 res.)
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Zimring68.htm

*Takes issue with point 6*

The concept behind the UN is not useless. The vagarities of human nature and a lack of control over members has led to its uselessness. I'd much rather massively overhaul the UN than allow it to die and put no system in its place.

There was a magistrate in Loudoun County who told me to come back and make a complaint only if my wife were actually dead.

Dang! With a statement like that, I'd head over to that gunshop in Sterling off 28 near Wing Factory... (sorry, the name eludes me).

abolishing the death penalty (there have been studies that show a link between higher violent crime rate in states that impose the death penalty and those that do not). and (the most controversial) 3) I think that most of the funding that is sent overseas in the form of 'foreign aid' and money wasted on exotic weapons systems could be better spent on improving our own educational and infrastructure systems.

Wow, I'm not a good conservative, am I?[/QUOTE]

There are also studies that show that some shampoo can reduce your ability to remember and recall things. ;) I don't trust a lot of those studies especially when it's on a political issue. Anyone remember the New York Times column about how 'Despite rising numbers of inmates, Crime rates dropping'? The death penalty is a good deterant to criminals, who wouldn't be afraid of being put to death for crimes? Think about why we build stealth bombers and nuclear weapons: not only to have a modern military that can handle almost any situation but they're built so we don't have to use them! Having so many nukes that we can blow an attacking country to dust is a pretty good deterant for them to attack us.

And spending money on the military is a good thing, even if it's mostly in the R&D section. Look at what we have today: Predator Drones that are unmanned and can keep our troops away from danger. If the drone is destroyed, we'll build another one and not lose a person. As we're seeing today across America, throwing money at education isn't how you fix the problems there. Good example is my area: New Orleans, Louisiana (yes, a RED state!!! AHHH!). We've been pouring money into the system for decades and we come to find that people are skimming off the top. We were giving paychecks to people who had been fired years ago or people who never worked in public education! Money is not the problem with our education system, it's the beauracracy that has built up around it. $200 for toilet paper? $50 for a school pencil? Sure...

*Takes issue with point 6*

The concept behind the UN is not useless. The vagarities of human nature and a lack of control over members has led to its uselessness. I'd much rather massively overhaul the UN than allow it to die and put no system in its place.

Well put. In this overhaul, can we only admit member nations that are democracies? Why do we listen to Communist China or Thoecracy Iran? How can a country say it's humane if the people there have no voice in their government? Okay, okay, I see the need for an international forum. So let's make another body like NATO except only w/countires that are democracies around the world. Many have said this in different ways and I firmly believe it to be true: Freedom is tha natural yearning of the human spirit. Everyone wants freedom. You cannot impose freedom on anyone. Freedom liberates the soul.

Roach Cliffs, you don't agree with the death penalty?? I'd have sworn from your earlier posts about the right to own guns and whatnot that you'd be a keen support of capital punishment. And where is this whole debate going? I could have sworn it was about 'liberals' and guns...

Dafydd, this may sound funny, but I don't support the death penalty. I do support my right to lethal self-defense.

Why?

Because I trust my own judgement more than I do the judgement of the state.

Sorry if I piss someone of but you Americans is funny about you constiution because many of you belive it to be unchallegable law and a absolute truth.


Fear not, that's not a "piss off" statement. A "piss off" statement would be equating the Bill of Rights to Mein Kampf or something. :)

Well, we don't believe it to be unchallengable; it is challenged and used in the courts every day. I personally believe everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but the law of the Supreme Court is indeed the law of the land.

It may not be an absolute truth, but it's the best we got. Also note that of the post 1804 Amendments (also post Civil War), that of the 15 passed that one of them repealled Prohibition and the majority of the rest (exceptions: 13-16 & 18 (repealed)) are all voting or elective office rules.
So... in 200 years, we've added FOUR non-voting/office holding Amendments, of which one bans Slavery and one provides for Income Tax. All things considered, that's a really solid document! :)


Even if you with that constituitional have allowed not allowed slavery allowed aphartied then not allowed it don't allowed women to vote and allowed women to vote as some examples.

I'm not sure if I quite follow you here, but slavery was indeed allowed until the end of the Civil War. (The Emancipation Proclomation was only for the border states). Aphartied never existed in the US. I'm not saying that segregation in the South was right, but I *am* saying that it was a transitional period in the nation and thank goodness it is not only over but resolved so that all men are indeed equal.
Women *never* had the right to vote until 1920, though there were some states that had limited enfrancisement before then.


Also already are you infringes the right to bear arms like for example you are not allowed to have a tank or a bazooka that is considered as sound concidirerens on the limits for the second amandment. But I think what most of your so called liberals in your country want to do is still have guns but just take some more sound thinking into it like for example limit the amount of guns, backgroundscheck and trace the guns.

Actually, you *can* acquire such things, but it takes an amazing amount of litigation.

It depends on the individual. For example, I'm all for licensing of people carrying firearms in gradiated steps (1st license for pistols & revolvers, another for automatic weapons, etc.) But in return, I want it to function like a drivers license -- right now I can carry my gun in Connecticut but not New York.

Sorry, I forgot to put a ;) in, that was supposed to be a joke. I'm well aware of the link between gun restrictions and firearm related murder rates.

Here's my not funny and vary serious controversial statement: the solution to probably 90% (my own guesstimate) of the gun and violent crime problems in the USA could be solved by 1) ending the stupid, pointless and expensive 'war on drugs', and 2) abolishing the death penalty (there have been studies that show a link between higher violent crime rate in states that impose the death penalty and those that do not). and (the most controversial) 3) I think that most of the funding that is sent overseas in the form of 'foreign aid' and money wasted on exotic weapons systems could be better spent on improving our own educational and infrastructure systems.

Wow, I'm not a good conservative, am I?

My turn to apologize. I was supporting your implied ;) By showing everyone else what was what--it wasn't directed at you. :D

I'll side with you on points 1 and the first part of 3. No, you're not a good conservative. Then again, neither am I.

How about my lesbian friend who was killed? Some people called her a "child molester" just because she was gay.
You do realize that most of the people here arguing against gun control would have gladly killed the person(s) that killed your friend. I probably would have emptied the entire gun into them. For that matter, what makes you think the gun was even legally owned to begin with?

Well, a consistent social conservative would want the least interference in people's private lives. So,

1. The state would get out of the marriage business, and leave it to individual religions or groups to define in their own way on their own. The state would get out of the divorce business. Property settlements and child custody/support would still be a state matter, but those problems exist outside of marriage as well.
2. The state would stop worrying about abortion. The state does not have a womb, so who cares?
3. The state would no longer regulate the sale or possession of drugs. No war on drugs, no violence on the streets. In fact, I might even provide free crack in poorer neighborhoods, to eliminate street gangs and prevent theft by drug users.
4. The state would provide for concealed carry by citizens without arrest records or mental incompetence. I would then cut back the police force, and allow for more civilian law enforcement.
5. The state would stop all foreign aid, and all payments to the UN. If everyone else in the world thinks it's such a good idea, they can pay for it.
6. The US would get out of the UN. It is a useless organization.
7. The state would stop regulating broadcast content.

I like all those--except the part about the state providing for concealed carry. The 2nd already does this--like in Vermont or Alaska.

*Takes issue with point 6*

The concept behind the UN is not useless. The vagarities of human nature and a lack of control over members has led to its uselessness. I'd much rather massively overhaul the UN than allow it to die and put no system in its place.

It's following the same path as the League of Nations, albeit at a slower pace. No one can agree, so nothing gets done, allowing for corruptive influences to take over.

I'm sick of having the US fund a disproportionately large portion of it, and getting very little back.

It IS pretty much useless. Even if it weren't, it's a stepping stone to a strong central global government--something the founders of the US were seriously against.

A rifle will work just as well for self defence. In regard to what's his name's question about what killed his friend, Of course it was a pistol! fyi assault weapons were um banned.
Why yes, it's certainly easy to carry a rifle around town for defence in extremely close swituations. Yep, that one works well. And don't get me started on that stupid SAW ban.

There are also studies that show that some shampoo can reduce your ability to remember and recall things. ;) I don't trust a lot of those studies especially when it's on a political issue. Anyone remember the New York Times column about how 'Despite rising numbers of inmates, Crime rates dropping'? The death penalty is a good deterant to criminals, who wouldn't be afraid of being put to death for crimes? Think about why we build stealth bombers and nuclear weapons: not only to have a modern military that can handle almost any situation but they're built so we don't have to use them! Having so many nukes that we can blow an attacking country to dust is a pretty good deterant for them to attack us.

Yeah, like before Sept. 11, 2001. We were spending boat loads of money on weapons and intelligence and it sure stopped those planes...hey wait a minute, WE GOT POUNDED!!

And spending money on the military is a good thing, even if it's mostly in the R&D section. Look at what we have today: Predator Drones that are unmanned and can keep our troops away from danger. If the drone is destroyed, we'll build another one and not lose a person. As we're seeing today across America, throwing money at education isn't how you fix the problems there. Good example is my area: New Orleans, Louisiana (yes, a RED state!!! AHHH!). We've been pouring money into the system for decades and we come to find that people are skimming off the top. We were giving paychecks to people who had been fired years ago or people who never worked in public education! Money is not the problem with our education system, it's the beauracracy that has built up around it. $200 for toilet paper? $50 for a school pencil? Sure...

First of all, Louisiana doesn't count. Ya crazy coon asses ;)

And I'm not a Republican, so go hooray someplace else. Republican and Democrat meddling in the affairs of Americans and in the business of other countries for the last 40 years is how we got into the screwed up boat we're in now. Thanks red and blue states!!

Thomas Jefferson himself warned about the idiocy and expense of a military industrial complex. He used those words. The second amendment was supposed to garuntee a standing army of militia, but keep in mind the founding fathers were not in favor of a large, expensive meddlesome military like we have today.

Same thing about social 'policies'. If the Republicans were really 'conservative' (here's a hint-- they're not), you wouldn't here a peep out of them about gay marriage, abortion, drug laws or anything except for property laws, and they would almost always fall on the side of the individual, and not the bloated corporate welfare recipients. Instead, we get to listen to Republicans moan incessently about 'moral decay' and 'family values' and lowering taxes by $50 for a family of 4. Geez.

You want conservative? I'll give you conservative: me. I'm a Libertarian. I'm pro-everything. I'm especially pro-not wasting money on foreign wars to spread puppet democracies, I'm especially pro-keeping mouths shut about 'religion' and 'morals' and 'marriage'. I'm even pro-social programs, just as long as they're not tied to some stupid and ill thought out crusade (like funding sex ed as long as the sex ed taught is abstinence only), and that programs are done at a state and local level so that the communities have local control over what happens, and isn't dictated to by an 'expert' 3500 miles away.

Republicans piss me off, ya know why? Freedom. They don't have a f**king clue as to what the word means. You can't say 'I'm for freedom' and 'I'm for the PATRIOT act', they're mutually exclusive. If you were really for freedom, you wouldn't care if some Hare Krishna somewhere smoked a joint before getting an abortion from a gay doctor. Instead, there's this weird desire to try and convert and save the world. Well we don't wanna be saved!!

There. I feel better. I got that off my chest. Please don't think I'm attacking or flaming. You're a fellow American and I know we both want what's best for our great land, right?

Right! :fluffle: God Bless the USA!

Well put. In this overhaul, can we only admit member nations that are democracies? Why do we listen to Communist China or Thoecracy Iran? How can a country say it's humane if the people there have no voice in their government? Okay, okay, I see the need for an international forum. So let's make another body like NATO except only w/countires that are democracies around the world. Many have said this in different ways and I firmly believe it to be true: Freedom is tha natural yearning of the human spirit. Everyone wants freedom. You cannot impose freedom on anyone. Freedom liberates the soul.

And yet, given the direction the UN is going, it's turning into a global governing organization. It's not about freedom--it's about controlling your neighbors.

Freedom can't be governed, so proposing an even larger governmental body is the opposite of what you want to be accomplished.

Well, then, why doesn't she MOVE??? As in, out of state, no forwarding address? I did that to escape a stalker, and you know what? To this day he hasn't found me. It's been eight years now. I doubt he even thinks about me anymore.
Shit, you really need to see a shrink, or at least get an extremely stable and open relationship with another human being. Of course, the former are sadly more easy to come by than the latter. Trying to deal with the trauma alone that from your posts has ocurred in your life is a definite no-no.

Jefferson's idiotic idea about the military got us our butts kicked in the War of 1812. Poor guy, good first term, but a second term that forever casts a shadow on his name.

Shit, you really need to see a shrink, or at least get an extremely stable and open relationship with another human being. Of course, the former are sadly more easy to come by than the latter. Trying to deal with the trauma alone that from your posts has ocurred in your life is a definite no-no.

Don't even try, AB. Bringing it up just brings about accusations of being mean, mocking her pain, and threats to have you moderated--though she can still fling everything under the sun--oh, as long as it's not specifically directed at someone, but large groups of people...

Really? Then you would be a murderer.

According to the law, for killing to be legally considered in self-defence, it must be an absolute last resort. If you hear someone break into your house, don't go find them with a gun. Try to hide or run away. Or stay where you are in the hopes that they will leave you alone. If they come at you with a weapon, you may shoot them.
Fuck that stupid shit. You have invaded my domain, possibly with the express purpose of harming me and mine. No mercy. Oh and as a side note.

Bucksnort, you do realize that a shotgun is much more likely than a pistol to kill someone right?

Roach Cliffs, you don't agree with the death penalty?? I'd have sworn from your earlier posts about the right to own guns and whatnot that you'd be a keen support of capital punishment. And where is this whole debate going? I could have sworn it was about 'liberals' and guns...

Absolutely not.

Ya know that Bill of Rights thing? How important it is to us Americans and you can't figure out why?

Well, scroll down to number 8 (I'll put it in fer ya, cuz I'm nice): Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


I find the death penalty to be cruel and unusual. I find that there are enough deficiencies in our judicial system that mistakes are made, and wrongfully convicted people can and have been executed. If your conviction is reversed while you're in jail, you can be let out, if your conviction is reversed and you're dead, well, you're still gonna be dead.

Finally, I also have kind of a 'moral', and I hate to use that word, but a delimma about whether or not the state should be allowed the right to end the lives of one of it's constituents.

I don't pick the parts of the constitution I like and don't like or don't agree with. I think the US Constitution is one of the great documents written in the course of shaping human history, and I support every letter. Jefferson and Franklin were geniuses in every sense of the word, and I think that the original ideals that this country was founded on are great ones, and I would like to see us move back to them.

Which is why I vote Libertarian.

I find the death penalty to be cruel and unusual. I find that there are enough deficiencies in our judicial system that mistakes are made, and wrongfully convicted people can and have been executed. If your conviction is reversed while you're in jail, you can be let out, if your conviction is reversed and you're dead, well, you're still gonna be dead.

The death penalty would be cruel and unusal if the people being executed were tortured to death, which I by the way, would fully support. Instead it costs a ton of money to "humanely" kill them. In the case of innocents, with todays technology it is becoming rarer and rarer that an innocent person be executed. Besides, accidents happen.

And yet, given the direction the UN is going, it's turning into a global governing organization. It's not about freedom--it's about controlling your neighbors.

Freedom can't be governed, so proposing an even larger governmental body is the opposite of what you want to be accomplished.

That's the thing though. If someone supports the Iraq war, and similar interventions in the name of liberation, they should be in favour of a global body that carries it out, rather than a small coalition, hence they should be in favour of a UN-type organisation, as this is the form best suited to the task. More resources, more support etc. As has been pointed out however, the UN as it is currently is will not carry this task out.

If you do not support such interventions, the only alternative is to tighten up your own borders, or collaboratively, form an alliance with like-minded nation to protect your own shores, and letting nations not in this alliance (which can be formal or informal) obtain democracy by themselves. Which is fine if that's what you want, but understandably hard for those countries to achieve if their rulers are heavily militaristic.

Why yes, it's certainly easy to carry a rifle around town for defence in extremely close swituations. Yep, that one works well. And don't get me started on that stupid SAW ban.
There's a specific ban on the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon?

Roach Cliffs, you don't agree with the death penalty?? I'd have sworn from your earlier posts about the right to own guns and whatnot that you'd be a keen support of capital punishment. And where is this whole debate going? I could have sworn it was about 'liberals' and guns...
The death penalty would be perfectly fine but as MGNY says, it is inherently faulty given that most of the people put to death under it do not have very reliable winesses placed at the act of the vrim itself, therefore said criminal has a chance of being innocent.

The death penalty would be cruel and unusal if the people being executed were tortured to death, which I by the way, would fully support. Instead it costs a ton of money to "humanely" kill them. In the case of innocents, with todays technology it is becoming rarer and rarer that an innocent person be executed. Besides, accidents happen.

Most of that money goes to legal expenses.

And you're going to say on the thread about liberals banning guns because of innocent people being killed it's OK that innocent people are being killed, just as long as it is sanctioned by the state?

You're also going to say that being locked into a cell and, knowing the day and hour that you are going to be executed, will have to sit and wait for years for that event to take place isn't cruel?

You're going to tell me that it's OK if we, as a society, execute your brother, or your mom, even if they were wrongfully convicted of a crime, because there is a percieved benefit to the country as a whole?

Would you like to re-examine your last statement?

Personally, I don't understand why the 2nd ammendment has been kept in the american constitution after the Civil War. I agree with hunting rifles and such, but being able to possess guns only creates paranoia. You know "He could have a gun, and if I don't have one, he might shoot me". As with the property laws: you can shoot anyone coming on your property. These laws are relics from a time you had to literally claim your turf. No socially intelligent person would want them to stay in place.

I dare any NRA-fanatic to tell me a REASONABLE reason to why he/she has a firearm (excluding for hunting, as mentioned above). Answers like "It's my right! My neighbor could shoot me! My dad was shot (it won't bring him back)!Come here and ask me this question in person!" don't count...

There's a specific ban on the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon?
Semi-Automatic Weapons ban. AKA the Assault Weapons Ban. It was never actually named the AWB however. The morons in places like Handgun Control Inc. started calling it that though.

Myrmidonisia, nobody who supports a socialist state says that it's ideal for entrepreneurs. In fact it's the opposite. Socialists also conceed that whilst left-wing government may not encourage technological etc development (I will take this point to make note of the fact that the first man in space was in fact a Russian under the communist regime), that isn't nearly as important as such trivialities as redistributing wealth and making the country a fair and safe place in which to live. As far as I'm concerned, being a socialist, I don't care about innovation if it leads to a society like that in America. I'd rather have everyone happy.

And Roach Cliffs, I'm not here to discuss whether you, or any other right-wing American (and yes right-wing in the UK is often used as an insult, rather like 'liberal' in the US) feel that you should keep the fruits of your own labours, as you so eliquently put it. However, you SHOULD be willing to give up an amount of your money, ranging from some if you're poor to lots if you're rich and can afford it, for things like a national health service (so that people shot in the streets are rushed to hospital BEFORE being checked for insurance). If you really have no compassion for any anyone else's life and wellbeing then it's a sad state of the environment in which you have been brought up.

And I think I am allowed to make a generalisation or two, considering that the title of this debate is 'So why exactly do Liberals want to completely ban guns?'. But it isn't a generalisation to say that way more than half of all the American electorate voted Bush in, again, the most war-mongering pathetic dribbling idiot of the 21st century. It is deeply sad and disturbing that more than half of the American electorate believe that the way to continue the 'war on terror' is to elect the very person who makes it worse. It is also very scary that more than half of the American electorate are willing to vote in a candidate who lost three out of three political debates with his opponent, and was suspected to have a earphone telling him what to say! And, perhaps worst of all, that more than half of the American electorate cannot see that Bush is using external conflict and national prejudices to hide the problems at home. And so, when I generalise about America, I do so about the more than half of the electorate.

I also reserve the right to generalise about a nation that elects governments that support and arm movements (the Afghanistan Taliban and Saddam Hussein's government), and then only years later begin campaigns to destroy them! How ironic that the weapons being used to fight off American forces are often American weapons!

Oh, and about the UK unemployment statistics, I got them, and checked them, across many sources. Check the BBC, the national government statistics (www.statistics.gov.uk) and any other place you wish. We both have a brilliant unemployment rate of 4.2 %. And what's more, our pound is worth nearly twice as much as your ever-weakening dollar!

Oh, and the example of people carrying WMD's was hyperbole - you know, exaggeration for effect?

Personally, gun registration and background checks are good enough for me. I don't think that anyone needs any sort of military grade weapon to 'hunt', or to protect themselves. We should know who owns which gun, so that when it ends up being the gun that kills someone, then we have a place to start an investigation.

The Russians were the first in Space because they were in a race against us and took risks even more insane than we did, but continue on.

Personally, I don't understand why the 2nd ammendment has been kept in the american constitution after the Civil War. I agree with hunting rifles and such, but being able to possess guns only creates paranoia. You know "He could have a gun, and if I don't have one, he might shoot me". As with the property laws: you can shoot anyone coming on your property. These laws are relics from a time you had to literally claim your turf. No socially intelligent person would want them to stay in place.

I dare any NRA-fanatic to tell me a REASONABLE reason to why he/she has a firearm (excluding for hunting, as mentioned above). Answers like "It's my right! My neighbor could shoot me! My dad was shot (it won't bring him back)!Come here and ask me this question in person!" don't count...

I'll take it.

Because I am a citizen. And the classical and still current definition of a citizen has three parts: the right to vote, the right to own property and the right to bear arms. If you think that the three are unrelated, you haven't paid close attention to history. If you think that people or society has drastically changed, you haven't paid attention to recent history.

People who are honest, upright and hard working are a threat to no one. People who are criminal, and have a desire to do harm are a threat to all.

My Gun Not Yours or Zaxon is welcome to knock on my door, say 'Hi, I'm My Gun Not Yours', and is free to walk in with an M249 SAW over his shoulder. Why? Because they are honest hard working Americans, and if everyone was as responsible and as good hearted as those two, the whole gun control issue would be limited to 'bipod or monopod'.

And you know it.

The death penalty would be cruel and unusal if the people being executed were tortured to death, which I by the way, would fully support. Instead it costs a ton of money to "humanely" kill them. In the case of innocents, with todays technology it is becoming rarer and rarer that an innocent person be executed. Besides, accidents happen.

Please tell me that you're joking.

Not only do you support doing exactly the same thing as the murderer, but you don't mind often actually making the sentence WORSE - ie a longer and more painful death, AND you don't really mind if every now and then someone completely innocent is killed?? Jesus Christ.

I believe the founding fathers of America were refering to the need to have weapons in case of conflicts that arrise in the towns of early Post-Colonial America, as police weren't a stabalized or plentiful functionary. I do not feel that guns in domestic areas are a good thing, but I would allow it. Assault weapons, on the other hand, appear to be nothing but trouble. Who needs a gun with such destructive power? We are getting too fearful.

The Russians were the first in Space because they were in a race against us and took risks even more insane than we did, but continue on.

Yes please don't think that for any minute I feel that Russia was in any way a decent state or place to live. But, the fact is that if a country, any country of any political persuasion, wishes to invest in technology or whatnot, they can and to great effect.

To Dafydd Jones: Thanks for your insight into other nations, but I think the issue here, considering I believe most of the people here are American and American gun control is considered the most "pressing" by many gun control advocates, is considering American liberals and American gun control. We're debating weaponry not a socialist revolution. The US is a nation free to elect whomever they wish, and its only the tactic of bitter losers to claim how vast a mistake was made. Bush's victory in the face of such opposition should be considered a triumph for democratic voting because all of the hatemongers like you failed to dissaude people from their choice in the voting booth. The declaration furthermore that Bush lost every debate he entered with Kerry is another example that his popularity cannot simply be shrugged off. And who gives a shit about your socialist country. Capitalism is one of the pillars of America, and I'll thank a Brit to leave our system of government alone. Yes, the British feel fit to criticize the US! After opressing our nation for years and failing to conquer it in the War of 1812, after pursuing a jinogistic "Empire" at the expense of member nations, and after losing the whole thing to the will of the people you imperialistically ruled, you still have the same inflated heads.

Because I am a citizen. And the classical and still current definition of a citizen has three parts: the right to vote, the right to own property and the right to bear arms.


I told you! I don't accept any "I have the right!"-type answers. Come up with a better one!

As a matter of fact, I'm no American. I was born on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain, in Hungary. I don't have the constitutional right to own weapons, and still am happy and upright...

Oh, Armed Bookworms, I just read an earlier post by yourself and want to clear something up. I am entirely against capital punishment and cannot stress how strongly I feel that any country allowing such punishments should seriously rethink their entire society.

Yes please don't think that for any minute I feel that Russia was in any way a decent state or place to live. But, the fact is that if a country, any country of any political persuasion, wishes to invest in technology or whatnot, they can and to great effect.
Yes, I suppose the eventual collapse of the USSR from overspending was a good thing.

I believe the founding fathers of America were refering to the need to have weapons in case of conflicts that arrise in the towns of early Post-Colonial America, as police weren't a stabalized or plentiful functionary. I do not feel that guns in domestic areas are a good thing, but I would allow it. Assault weapons, on the other hand, appear to be nothing but trouble. Who needs a gun with such destructive power? We are getting too fearful.

AMEN! Let me guess: you're no american, either?

I told you! I don't accept any "I have the right!"-type answers. Come up with a better one!

As a matter of fact, I'm no American. I was born on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain, in Hungary. I don't have the constitutional right to own weapons, and still am happy and upright...

Well, let me rephrase it then:

I am a citizen, and according to the founders of our country, I have the responsibility to take care of the propery I own, I have the responsibility to vote in every election and I have the responsibility to be at all times armed and know how to use those arms in defense of person and state.

See, 'right' and 'responsibility' are often the same thing.

Are there any Americans out there? Just asking. This page does concern the 2nd Amendment, right? Thats part of the American constitution, and this is an American issue of utter domesticity, so I personally think you'd need to live here to understand. Is there anyone from the good old USA who cares to debate this issue of gun control?

People who are honest, upright and hard working are a threat to no one. People who are criminal, and have a desire to do harm are a threat to all.


it really annoys me when people think that criminals are crminals because they want to be. they commit crimes because they are poor, or they are addicted to drugs. these are two things that are out of their control. drugs are out of their control for obvious reasons. being poor is out of their control because it is imposed on them through poverty, imposed through capitalism. eradicate capitalism, eradicate poverty, eradicte crime. simple, isnt it?
and what REALLY annoys me is that people who are higher up in the world of capitalism want to 'reserve the right' to shoot any of these unlucky souls.

To Dafydd Jones: Thanks for your insight into other nations, but I think the issue here, considering I believe most of the people here are American and American gun control is considered the most "pressing" by many gun control advocates, is considering American liberals and American gun control. We're debating weaponry not a socialist revolution. The US is a nation free to elect whomever they wish, and its only the tactic of bitter losers to claim how vast a mistake was made. Bush's victory in the face of such opposition should be considered a triumph for democratic voting because all of the hatemongers like you failed to dissaude people from their choice in the voting booth. The declaration furthermore that Bush lost every debate he entered with Kerry is another example that his popularity cannot simply be shrugged off. And who gives a shit about your socialist country. Capitalism is one of the pillars of America, and I'll thank a Brit to leave our system of government alone. Yes, the British feel fit to criticize the US! After opressing our nation for years and failing to conquer it in the War of 1812, after pursuing a jinogistic "Empire" at the expense of member nations, and after losing the whole thing to the will of the people you imperialistically ruled, you still have the same inflated heads.

Oh dear, how embarassing for you.

We are NOT a socialist country by any means, sadly. And capitalism is one of the things that keeps beating on the "pillars" of America. Don't get me wrong, I love the vast majority of Americans and am appauled that the British ever did anything colonial. But let me stress one thing - you think that Bush getting elected is a triumph of democracy? You think that him losing his debates is a good thing because it prooves his popularity? Both of those things prove that more Americans than not vote a President into power because of how they look, the way they speak etc and not on how they conduct their politics.

You have no real point, you complete idiot, of course we have a right to bloody well criticise your government because of the huge damage that it is doing to our generation and future generations of Brits, Afghans and Iraqis to come. In fact, to everyone! Is it not amusing that 80% of the world excluding America rathered than Kerry became President than Bush? Perhaps its because we haven't all been brought up in American society and can reflect on elections for what they are - a national decision to see who becomes the political leader, not who is the best celebrity. Everyone else realises than Bush is one of the most dangerous men to have ever walked the earth - why can't you???

Well, let me rephrase it then:

I am a citizen, and according to the founders of our country, I have the responsibility to take care of the propery I own, I have the responsibility to vote in every election and I have the responsibility to be at all times armed and know how to use those arms in defense of person and state.

See, 'right' and 'responsibility' are often the same thing.
You make it sound like you were forced to do all that. And I still say you should comee up with something more original than "Because the constitution tells me to." If you had the right to sommit suicide, would you jump outta the window?!

I believe the founding fathers of America were refering to the need to have weapons in case of conflicts that arrise in the towns of early Post-Colonial America, as police weren't a stabalized or plentiful functionary. I do not feel that guns in domestic areas are a good thing, but I would allow it. Assault weapons, on the other hand, appear to be nothing but trouble. Who needs a gun with such destructive power? We are getting too fearful.

I believe the founding fathers of America knew that governments are evil. As time goes on, governments will become more corrupt. The result is lost liberty. The 2nd amendment guarantees that people have arms to defend thier property from the government and whom ever tries to tread on them.


Freedom: My Anti-GOV.
I am IJ. www.IJ.org. Defending Amercans against eminent domain.
www.bureaucrash.org. Fighting an information war against the nanny state.

it really annoys me when people think that criminals are crminals because they want to be. they commit crimes because they are poor, or they are addicted to drugs. these are two things that are out of their control. drugs are out of their control for obvious reasons. being poor is out of their control because it is imposed on them through poverty, imposed through capitalism. eradicate capitalism, eradicate poverty, eradicte crime. simple, isnt it?
and what REALLY annoys me is that people who are higher up in the world of capitalism want to 'reserve the right' to shoot any of these unlucky souls.


Finally, someone with some sense!

It gets really frustrating trying to debate an issue when the only response varies around the statement "but it's our right to carry a gun".

Finally, someone with some sense!

It gets really frustrating trying to debate an issue when the only response varies around the statement "but it's our right to carry a gun".
That's sooooo true. That was the thought behind my "challange".

Finally, someone with some sense!

It gets really frustrating trying to debate an issue when the only response varies around the statement "but it's our right to carry a gun".

wow, thanks mate, i love you too!

perhaps, when all the americans who voted bush are SO poor, and there is a select few of CEOs and republican politicians who are SO rich, they will put their machine guns to good use and have a socialist revolution. just wait, it'll happen. yeah, even you, roach cliffs.

Capitalism is the only system of economics that is congruent with freedom. Everyone has an opportunity to succeed. Socialism/communism failed, get over it.

Socialism Kills!

it really annoys me when people think that criminals are crminals because they want to be. they commit crimes because they are poor, or they are addicted to drugs. these are two things that are out of their control. drugs are out of their control for obvious reasons. being poor is out of their control because it is imposed on them through poverty, imposed through capitalism. eradicate capitalism, eradicate poverty, eradicte crime. simple, isnt it?
and what REALLY annoys me is that people who are higher up in the world of capitalism want to 'reserve the right' to shoot any of these unlucky souls.

Frankly, that's just completely idiotic.

Drugs are not out of their control. Hundreds of years before the stupid 'war on drugs' was started, people smoked their little weed, drank their little drink, and for the vast majority of the world, their little vices were just that, their little vices.

Being poor may be imposed on you in the beginning, but Warren Buffet will be one of the first to tell you, you don't have to stay that way. There are several people I know personally who are upper middle class to extremely wealthy who started out poor. And I don't mean poor like you, I mean 'where's dinner going to come from' poor, and they managed to work their way up and out of it. As did I. I left home with $25 and now drive a pretty nice car and live in a pretty nice neighborhood. I even managed to smoke a little weed along the way.

You know what pisses me off? Apologists for laziness. That no one should be forced to work, and that if you need something, it should be given to you. Well, that's bullshit. I know people who are given everything, and they are lazy and appreciate nothing.

By the way, capitalism created the computer you're sitting at and the web forum you're typing on.

america was built with guns :mp5: the fact is that IDIOTS with guns are the ones you hear on the news or anywhere else killing people. a person in thier right mind would not need to kill, unless its self defense. you may not hear of the average case of assault but it happens more than you think. it also takes some amount of guts / stupidity to actually aim at a real person. i may be wrong about the numbers, but i think in the uk it took only 60,000 people to vote to ban guns and there is something like 14 million people. a nation without guns is a ruled nation. i dont know about the rest of the world but i dont want some crack pot shmuck who desends from some asshole who lived 2000 years ago telling me what to do. i get enough of that from the dickhead they ellected now.

Frankly, that's just completely idiotic.

Drugs are not out of their control. Hundreds of years before the stupid 'war on drugs' was started, people smoked their little weed, drank their little drink, and for the vast majority of the world, their little vices were just that, their little vices.

Being poor may be imposed on you in the beginning, but Warren Buffet will be one of the first to tell you, you don't have to stay that way. There are several people I know personally who are upper middle class to extremely wealthy who started out poor. And I don't mean poor like you, I mean 'where's dinner going to come from' poor, and they managed to work their way up and out of it. As did I. I left home with $25 and now drive a pretty nice car and live in a pretty nice neighborhood. I even managed to smoke a little weed along the way.

You know what pisses me off? Apologists for laziness. That no one should be forced to work, and that if you need something, it should be given to you. Well, that's bullshit. I know people who are given everything, and they are lazy and appreciate nothing.

By the way, capitalism created the computer you're sitting at and the web forum you're typing on.


I think the people who are socialists are on drugs. Hallucinogenics at that.

america was built with guns :mp5: the fact is that IDIOTS with guns are the ones you hear on the news or anywhere else killing people. a person in thier right mind would not need to kill, unless its self defense. you may not hear of the average case of assault but it happens more than you think. it also takes some amount of guts / stupidity to actually aim at a real person. i may be wrong about the numbers, but i think in the uk it took only 60,000 people to vote to ban guns and there is something like 14 million people. a nation without guns is a ruled nation. i dont know about the rest of the world but i dont want some crack pot shmuck who desends from some asshole who lived 2000 years ago telling me what to do. i get enough of that from the dickhead they ellected now.

The UK is a nanny state. F em.

Capitalism is the only system of economics that is congruent with freedom. Everyone has an opportunity to succeed. Socialism/communism failed, get over it.

Socialism Kills!

Socialism didnt fail, you turnip. Sweden, Iceland...they both have far better standards of living that of good old America. And as far as I'm aware, Cuba is communist and happy being communist too. So, erm, what's your point?

Socialism kills? Do you actually know what socialism is? Socialism is an economic system. How can an economic system kill? Perhaps more accurate is to say that far-right (as in America) politics kills. It doesn't guarantee anybody any money to live on, and you can only be operated on if you can afford it. Far-right politics also has this tendency to invade other countries, killing many many people not least citizens of the aggressor, in order to hide its own problems, like Bush is doing. So in other words, killing people perhaps?

Capitalism is the only system of economics that is congruent with freedom. Everyone has an opportunity to succeed. Socialism/communism failed, get over it.

Socialism Kills!


right, pacifist me has got angry...

socialism and capitalism DID NOT FAIL. the system used in russia was STATE CAPITALISM, a form of capitalism, just socialistified. what went wrong was capitalists in russia did not want to let go of what they had. it is very difficult to change a persons mindset away from capitalism when they are doing fine out of it with their plasma telvisions. but one day it will happen, of this i am sure.

just look at all the poverty in the world. does it not make you feel ANYTHING?

i try to be as nice as i can whenever i post replies, but i cant take it much more. i fugging hate capitalists and right wingers.

You make it sound like you were forced to do all that. And I still say you should comee up with something more original than "Because the constitution tells me to." If you had the right to sommit suicide, would you jump outta the window?!

Really now, I think what you're missing, probably because you have never really lived or grown up in a free country ( and admittedly, we're not as free as we used to be, Thanks George!), and haven't read the inspiring word of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, or Thomas Paine, you are always going to have a hard time understanding what we (Americans) are talking about.

I have the right and responsibility to vote. That means that where in many countries the people who live in that country are subject to the whims of whoever is in power (like communist countries), whereas, I not only get to choose who is elected into office, but it is my civic duty to do so.

I have the right to own property. But that property needs to be cared for and maintained in order for it to keep its value or productivity. I have the responsibility of upkeep and care for that property, no matter what it is.

I have the right to bear arms. I also have the responsibility of keeping those weapons secured and safe, and the responsibility of defending my property and state if it becomes threatended. I also have the responsibility of ensuring that a tyrannical government, one not elected by the people cannot take control of our land, lives and proberty.

Rights comes with responsibilities. Many people are not going to understand what it means to be free and what it means to have civic and civil responsibilities, as their ancestors abandoned those rights long ago. But, in the words of Ben Franklin:

"Those who give up liberty for security get niether"

When you gave up the liberty to own weapons, how secure were you? Judging by European history? Not very.

By the way, capitalism created the computer you're sitting at and the web forum you're typing on.

Don't be an idiot. Capitalism didn't create the web, the web evolved over a period of time and was done so by groups of comuter scientists. Capitalism turned the web into the pop-up throwing, pornography filled, money-making-scam shithole that it regularly is. The web would have been best entirely free-source, true with its original intent.

just look at all the poverty in the world. does it not make you feel ANYTHING?

We feel for them. We also know that one very large employee owned company will do far more for impoverished persons than 1000 stupid government handout programs.

i try to be as nice as i can whenever i post replies, but i cant take it much more. i fugging hate capitalists and right wingers.

If you had an idea for a business, and it took off and made you millions, would you give half of it away to the poor? Because you're a 'socialist'? Nope, you'd buy yourself a Ferrari with a plasma screen dashboard.

I try and be as nice as I can, but I'm beginning to think you're just lazy, and would rather have a friggin' hand out than to get up off your butt and go to work.

i try to be as nice as i can whenever i post replies, but i cant take it much more. i fugging hate capitalists and right wingers.

I also love the argument put forward by right-wingers - I know some rich person that used to be poor, and HE says that capitalism is great and super and doesn't want to give any of his money away!

We are surrounded by ignorant rich kids who enjoy being indoctrinated and voting Bush.

Socialism didnt fail, you turnip. Sweden, Iceland...they both have far better standards of living that of good old America. And as far as I'm aware, Cuba is communist and happy being communist too. So, erm, what's your point?

Socialism kills? Do you actually know what socialism is? Socialism is an economic system. How can an economic system kill? Perhaps more accurate is to say that far-right (as in America) politics kills. It doesn't guarantee anybody any money to live on, and you can only be operated on if you can afford it. Far-right politics also has this tendency to invade other countries, killing many many people not least citizens of the aggressor, in order to hide its own problems, like Bush is doing. So in other words, killing people perhaps?


Cuba???????????? The people who are risking thier lives to flee to America. Ya that's utopia.

Socialism creates an environment in which everyone is at the whims of the government. Equality mandates a lack of privacy because you need to be able to distribute the wealth.

How many people died in the USSR? How many people are dying in North Korea?

The socialists economies are finding it too wastful to continue thier systems. France and Germany are discussing cuting thier lavish entitlements.

Bush is not right wing. He's big government. Big government is not right wing in America. Iraq, not right wing. Afganistan and kicking the shit out of the Taliban who attacked us, that's American.

Don't tread on me!

Frankly, that's just completely idiotic.

Drugs are not out of their control. Hundreds of years before the stupid 'war on drugs' was started, people smoked their little weed, drank their little drink, and for the vast majority of the world, their little vices were just that, their little vices.

Being poor may be imposed on you in the beginning, but Warren Buffet will be one of the first to tell you, you don't have to stay that way. There are several people I know personally who are upper middle class to extremely wealthy who started out poor. And I don't mean poor like you, I mean 'where's dinner going to come from' poor, and they managed to work their way up and out of it. As did I. I left home with $25 and now drive a pretty nice car and live in a pretty nice neighborhood. I even managed to smoke a little weed along the way.

You know what pisses me off? Apologists for laziness. That no one should be forced to work, and that if you need something, it should be given to you. Well, that's bullshit. I know people who are given everything, and they are lazy and appreciate nothing.

By the way, capitalism created the computer you're sitting at and the web forum you're typing on.

you may think its idiotic, i dont.

im not talking about weed, ive smoked weed. im talking about hard drugs which take control of the person who starts on them.

well done, im truely very pleased for you. and although i myself have never been poor in my living memory, a few weeks after i was born my mum and shortly afterwards my dad were made redundant by thatcher. like you, my dad worked his way out of it.

BUT, my argument was that it doesn't have to be this way. why should every single human have to go through this struggle to survive, when a tiny minority are born into undescribable wealth? why should we be enslaved by these people? what would you rather have had, your obviously hard struggle to suceed or would you have rather have been supported by the government to a large degree?

and plus, i know capitalism made this computer, but socialism would have made one just as well, but the people who made it would have been paid fairly.

Don't be an idiot. Capitalism didn't create the web, the web evolved over a period of time and was done so by groups of comuter scientists. Capitalism turned the web into the pop-up throwing, pornography filled, money-making-scam shithole that it regularly is. The web would have been best entirely free-source, true with its original intent.

Where did I say 'web'? Don't be an idiot! Read more carefully!!

Ha ha, I didn't. The web didn't 'evolve over a period of time' it was invented by DARPA, a division of the US Government to connect the research computers at the different nuclear weapons labs. The first the sites were Lawrence Livermore in California, Los Alamos NM and Oak Ridge, TN. It was later expanded because of the amount of other universities that were doing other types of weapons and government research.

And speak for yourself, but I quite enjoy the porn...

We feel for them. We also know that one very large employee owned company will do far more for impoverished persons than 1000 stupid government handout programs.

Oh dear. Roach, why do you bother speaking when you're so ill-informed? This is the kind of argument that supports companies like Nike and Adidas producing their products in sweat-shops because the employees "would rather work for Nike than not work at all".

Firstly, an employee-owned company is called a co-operative. This is a socialist ideal.

Secondly, big companies that provide masses of employment for those in the developing world do so after seizing land (not physically but as good as) off all the farmers who could at least grow their own produce [examples - Indonesia, China, Taiwan...] and wouldn't have to work for nearly 20 hours a day with only 15 cents an hour to show for it. Have you also heard about all the employees in sweat-shops that actually die from over-exhaustion? No, of course you haven't. Because what's good for the corporations is good for everyone.

Where did I say 'web'? Don't be an idiot! Read more carefully!!

Ha ha, I didn't. The web didn't 'evolve over a period of time' it was invented by DARPA, a division of the US Government to connect the research computers at the different nuclear weapons labs. The first the sites were Lawrence Livermore in California, Los Alamos NM and Oak Ridge, TN. It was later expanded because of the amount of other universities that were doing other types of weapons and government research.

And speak for yourself, but I quite enjoy the porn...


Capiatlism made it better!

Cuba???????????? The people who are risking thier lives to flee to America. Ya that's utopia.

Socialism creates an environment in which everyone is at the whims of the government. Equality mandates a lack of privacy because you need to be able to distribute the wealth.

How many people died in the USSR? How many people are dying in North Korea?

The socialists economies are finding it too wastful to continue thier systems. France and Germany are discussing cuting thier lavish entitlements.

Bush is not right wing. He's big government. Big government is not right wing in America. Iraq, not right wing. Afganistan and kicking the shit out of the Taliban who attacked us, that's American.

Don't tread on me!


Bush isn't right-wing???!!!!!!!! Are you entirely out of your annoying little mind???? Do you know what right wing is? Let me explain it to you. A Laissez-faire attitude to the economy OR society. Bush has that to both. He doesn't intervene in business, and doesn't have decent tax levels. Bush is the opitomy of right-wing politics.

DEAR GOD!!! You ignorant little American. You are ENTIRELY at the whims of the corporations that rule, and I mean rule, America. American government is afraid of passing any anti-corporate legislation because it may threaten the economy. Oh no, wait, it won't pass anti-corporate legislation because the CEO's of the companies actually own the political parties!!! Just look at Fox News for an example of you lot being at the Whims of the state - it's bloody funded by the Republican party! And you STILL see it as a real news channel!

Give me strength.

If you had an idea for a business, and it took off and made you millions, would you give half of it away to the poor? Because you're a 'socialist'? Nope, you'd buy yourself a Ferrari with a plasma screen dashboard.

I try and be as nice as I can, but I'm beginning to think you're just lazy, and would rather have a friggin' hand out than to get up off your butt and go to work.

actually, you may find this hard to believe as a capitalist, but i would give my money away. and i am a socialist, yes. i seriously believe that there should be a maximum wage of 50000 pounds, or the equivalent. the rest should go to charity, or the government.

also i have a weekend job and im at sixth form during the week, and im off to university next year. ok?

well done, im truely very pleased for you. and although i myself have never been poor in my living memory, a few weeks after i was born my mum and shortly afterwards my dad were made redundant by thatcher. like you, my dad worked his way out of it.

Good for him!! Too bad he didn't teach you about something we refer to as 'work ethic' along the way.

BUT, my argument was that it doesn't have to be this way. why should every single human have to go through this struggle to survive, when a tiny minority are born into undescribable wealth? why should we be enslaved by these people? what would you rather have had, your obviously hard struggle to suceed or would you have rather have been supported by the government to a large degree?

Who is supposed to support this government, btw? And No, to answer your question, I would rather have the freedom ( a concept Europeans obviously don't understand) to go out and start my own company, with the hard work and effort going to me and my family, instead of a bunch of whiners.

and plus, i know capitalism made this computer, but socialism would have made one just as well, but the people who made it would have been paid fairly.

You mean that the government mandated factory and subsidized wages for the workers would have eventually produced a 486 ten years from now.

Boy, I'm sold!! :headbang:

Oooh, a fellow British sixth former. Glad to see I'm not the only one. I'm loving you more by the minute.

Oh dear. Roach, why do you bother speaking when you're so ill-informed? This is the kind of argument that supports companies like Nike and Adidas producing their products in sweat-shops because the employees "would rather work for Nike than not work at all".

Firstly, an employee-owned company is called a co-operative. This is a socialist ideal.

Secondly, big companies that provide masses of employment for those in the developing world do so after seizing land (not physically but as good as) off all the farmers who could at least grow their own produce [examples - Indonesia, China, Taiwan...] and wouldn't have to work for nearly 20 hours a day with only 15 cents an hour to show for it. Have you also heard about all the employees in sweat-shops that actually die from over-exhaustion? No, of course you haven't. Because what's good for the corporations is good for everyone.

Sweat-shops and property theft are the result of mercantilism, not capitalism. The companies that do this depend on corrupt governments that do not recognize property rights.

How's India's economy with all those good ex-American jobs? More people working and increased wealth. Hum, sounds like freedom to me.

Oooh, a fellow British sixth former. Glad to see I'm not the only one. I'm loving you more by the minute.

excellent, want to set up a fringe group, 'british sixth formers against poverty'?

actually, you may find this hard to believe as a capitalist, but i would give my money away.

*cough* *cough* bullshit!! *cough*

and i am a socialist, yes. i seriously believe that there should be a maximum wage of 50000 pounds, or the equivalent. the rest should go to charity, or the government.

Tell that to Richard Branson, he's a Brit, and he bailed out of there to go live on his own little island.

also i have a weekend job and im at sixth form during the week, and im off to university next year. ok?

Oh, your in high school. Wait untill you have a mortgage and a couple of rug rats, and come back and tell me how that $62k a year works for ya!

Really now, I think what you're missing, probably because you have never really lived or grown up in a free country ( and admittedly, we're not as free as we used to be, Thanks George!), and haven't read the inspiring word of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, or Thomas Paine, you are always going to have a hard time understanding what we (Americans) are talking about.

I have the right and responsibility to vote. That means that where in many countries the people who live in that country are subject to the whims of whoever is in power (like communist countries), whereas, I not only get to choose who is elected into office, but it is my civic duty to do so.


Wonderful! Walked right into my trap! You don't know a heck about politics on the east side of the Iron Curtain. I personally only lived in SOCIALIST Hungary for only 2 years (After that, we moved to Austria, which is a different story), but even then, there was an elected parliament. It was as a free country as the Eastern Block could afford.
Since 1989 (fall of the Iron Curtain), there is a socialist democracy in Hungary, similar to western Europe, with elections every 4 years. I know what it means to vote!

I have the right to own property. But that property needs to be cared for and maintained in order for it to keep its value or productivity. I have the responsibility of upkeep and care for that property, no matter what it is.

There was private property in these countries. Not much, but we could defend it without shooting anyone interfering with it.


I have the right to bear arms. I also have the responsibility of keeping those weapons secured and safe, and the responsibility of defending my property and state if it becomes threatended. I also have the responsibility of ensuring that a tyrannical government, one not elected by the people cannot take control of our land, lives and proberty.


We don't need to own arms. We have a working police ad military who defend our lives, state and property.


Rights comes with responsibilities. Many people are not going to understand what it means to be free and what it means to have civic and civil responsibilities, as their ancestors abandoned those rights long ago. But, in the words of Ben Franklin:

"Those who give up liberty for security get niether"

When you gave up the liberty to own weapons, how secure were you? Judging by European history? Not very.
We were free, to a certain extend, and so are you. You have had all your civil rights earlier than other countries, but to the extend of social policies. If you're poor/sick/unemployed, you can't count on the state. That's social SECURITY.
Now to history: Europe has a history spanning over millennia, the US's over a little more than 200 years. You can't compare that. The US made their wealth through oppressing the native population and the afro-american slaves. What if those would have gotten weapons?
Also, most anti-weapon laws in Europe were employed and strongly enforced after WW2, a time of 50 years of relative peace. Counter that if you can!

Good for him!! Too bad he didn't teach you about something we refer to as 'work ethic' along the way

......

I would rather have the freedom ( a concept Europeans obviously don't understand)

.....

You mean that the government mandated factory and subsidized wages for the workers would have eventually produced a 486 ten years from now.

Your first snippet of bullshit - how can he have worked his way out of Thatcher-enduced poverty without a work ethic?

The second - You Americans seem to think that freedom means not having to pay taxes. No, freedom is a state of mind allowing one to be able to think for themselves. You, who thinks that all Americans are free, do not have this. Don't be so naive. Go back and watch Fox News, and buy your Nike shoes and walk through your advert-smothered neighbourhoods. You have no choice. You do exactly what your government wants you to do.

The third - this is a stupid point with no evidence to back it up. Why make it?

Roach Cliffs, it seems that you just lost. Sorry mate.

Bush isn't right-wing???!!!!!!!! Are you entirely out of your annoying little mind???? Do you know what right wing is? Let me explain it to you. A Laissez-faire attitude to the economy OR society. Bush has that to both. He doesn't intervene in business, and doesn't have decent tax levels. Bush is the opitomy of right-wing politics.

DEAR GOD!!! You ignorant little American. You are ENTIRELY at the whims of the corporations that rule, and I mean rule, America. American government is afraid of passing any anti-corporate legislation because it may threaten the economy. Oh no, wait, it won't pass anti-corporate legislation because the CEO's of the companies actually own the political parties!!! Just look at Fox News for an example of you lot being at the Whims of the state - it's bloody funded by the Republican party! And you STILL see it as a real news channel!

Give me strength.


Expanding of medicare is not right wing. Creating layers of govenment on top of layers of government is not right wing. Unless you are a right wing socialist-NAZI. Defecit spending is not right wing. He is not Laissez-faire.

Fox??????????? I don't see it as real news. I am not a republicrat either.

Taxes are theft.

Good for him!! Too bad he didn't teach you about something we refer to as 'work ethic' along the way.



Who is supposed to support this government, btw? And No, to answer your question, I would rather have the freedom ( a concept Europeans obviously don't understand) to go out and start my own company, with the hard work and effort going to me and my family, instead of a bunch of whiners.



You mean that the government mandated factory and subsidized wages for the workers would have eventually produced a 486 ten years from now.

Boy, I'm sold!! :headbang:



ok ok, i work! i struggle along the same as everyone else! im working at school so i can have a better future! ok?

who would support a socialist government? the working classes, the middle classes, everyone except the ruling classes. once everyone realises that the slave trade is still alive and well, then people will be willing to throw themselves behind socialism for the good of us all. i know that no one (in the western world) will support a socialist government now, because we're fine.

as for the quip about socialist factories, i assume this is taken from soviet russia? once again, that was not communism.

Your first snippet of bullshit - how can he have worked his way out of Thatcher-enduced poverty without a work ethic?

He, not you. You seem to want a handout.

The second - You Americans seem to think that freedom means not having to pay taxes. No, freedom is a state of mind allowing one to be able to think for themselves. You, who thinks that all Americans are free, do not have this. Don't be so naive. Go back and watch Fox News, and buy your Nike shoes and walk through your advert-smothered neighbourhoods. You have no choice. You do exactly what your government wants you to do.

No, Americans think freedom is freedom from government. And you can't have socialism without a shitload of government.

The third - this is a stupid point with no evidence to back it up. Why make it?

Sure I do. England is mostly socialist, right? Your cars sucked ass until Ford (a company from a capitalist country) and others came in a bought 'em.

Same thing with your airplanes, oh wait, you don't have airplanes. Airbus is subsidised by the EU in order for the Europeans to be competitive with our REAL aerospace industry, and they still aren't! How's that!

Oh, what the hell am I doing? You two are twelve, how would you know?

Amazing the stuff you learn. I had no idea there have been breakdowns of democracy in my country since our independence, thank you jingoist Americans for pointing that one out! Nor did I know that I'm constantly the victim of all kinds of crimes because I'm not allowed to carry around firearms, here was naive little me thinking that low crime rates mean there is little crime.

I thought I did the whole "Countries with governments espousing several socialist ideas dominate the world economic competitiveness rankings and have done so for at least ten years" thing already, how often does it need repeating?

Roach Cliffs, it seems that you just lost. Sorry mate.

Bugger off, wanker!

"I dare any NRA-fanatic to tell me a REASONABLE reason to why he/she has a firearm"

My wife and I were pursued by a fanatic ex-husband abuser/stalker.
The courts will provide a protective order, but the police will not enforce it vigorously - that is, they will not place a full-time guard around us. This is a fact of life in the US.

My wife had her teeth beaten out of her mouth. She had a finger pulled out of her hand. She was stabbed. She was beaten on repeated occasions.

And while we were sleeping, he set fire to the house we were living in.

And because police are not like they are on CSI, he has never been more than arrested - never convicted.

So we both carry firearms at all times. We have the necessary permits. By law, if he appears within range, we have permission to open fire, because he poses a lethal threat - a threat he may carry out without warning, by his established pattern, and before any police can arrive. He is larger, stronger, and more skilled in hand to hand than either my wife or myself.

He knows we carry. He leaves us alone now. I'm sure if we were not carrying, I would have been killed this past summer.

Would you rather we were dead, or all three of us alive, and him leaving us alone?

That's the choice here in the states.

Oh dear, how embarassing for you.

We are NOT a socialist country by any means, sadly. And capitalism is one of the things that keeps beating on the "pillars" of America. Don't get me wrong, I love the vast majority of Americans and am appauled that the British ever did anything colonial. But let me stress one thing - you think that Bush getting elected is a triumph of democracy? You think that him losing his debates is a good thing because it prooves his popularity? Both of those things prove that more Americans than not vote a President into power because of how they look, the way they speak etc and not on how they conduct their politics.

You have no real point, you complete idiot, of course we have a right to bloody well criticise your government because of the huge damage it is doing to our generation and future generations of Brits, Afghans and Iraqis to come. In fact, Is it not amusing that 80% of the world excluding America rathered than Kerry became President than Bush? Perhaps its because we haven't all been brought up in American society and can reflect on elections for what they are - a national decision to see who becomes the political leader, not who is the best celebrity. Everyone else realises than Bush is one of the most dangerous men to have ever walked the earth - why can't you???


One of the most dangerous men to ever have walked the Earth? If you request, I'll find a list of one hundred people who are or were more dangerous. I could only laugh as hard at the fact that you called me a complete idiot. Sorry I'm so stupid, I guess we in America need to go to Cambridge or Oxford and drink our tea to open our minds, right? If you love the majority of America, you must only love the people who actually think that Britain is worth a farthing. I know you're not. This is what liberal BBC and the skewed viewpoint of reality does. You try to sound so strong; the pound isnt worth in any banks except your own. Other nations hoard our dollars. And you guys still delude yourselves with monarchy... But thats a story for another day. Let's look at the facts- 51 percent of the people voted for Bush. I consider it a triumph of democracy that a person was peacably elected at all. I am, clearly, a conservative, but I praise the actions of most liberals who accepted the fact that democracy's gears wound and worked. This was a clear, albeit not decisive victory. Democracy is what the people want. If yout think that they voted wrongly, ok. Fine. But the candidate that the people elected was put into office. Isn't that democracy? Everyone realizes your maniacal ideals? Just what kind of army do you think supports you? My point is, you must've missed it, that democracy was served. People generally understand this. Do we really need to care about the whim of the rest of the world, if they only want to screw us? Do you think we're really enacting a disservice upon Iraq by liberating them? Should the United States care what one sniveling little British asshole thinks? Maybe your news stations didn't show the anti-Bush ads coming from America and you assumed the world lived and died with what the British Isles saw on their tellies? No Bush has been villified too. How he talks and speaks? He looks and stands awkwardly, repeats himself, and may say uncharacteristic or unintended things with unnecessary conviction. He's been caricaturized as a pig in literally hundreds of newspapers I've seen. Do you think people voted for Bush because he was suave and certain? Far from it. I'll be the first to admit that I don't like to see Bush give speeches. A celebrity? Good God, you can't be serious. But he did expel Saddam Hussein, and that was good, screw what the rest of the world thinks. We're the ones losing soldiers here, the British effort in this war is infinitessimal. And you even begin to cite Afghanistan? That's a textbook success story; they have their first democratic president in history. And now I turn to capitalism. Do you think that socialism will just suddenly work? Centuries of failed enterprises, even socialistic settlements in America failed to work. Capitalism is the only thing that lets freedom exist in its current form. We invented the American Dream, and millions of poor immigrants came to pursue it. Have you ever thought to consider that after two centuries of people earning their way through life on their own merit, after millions of people who were raised up from their ethnic lands to the hope of a financial future, after the hyperbolization in Horatio Alger's books, there is actually a reason capitalism works? People can do as they please in America.

*cough* *cough* bullshit!! *cough*



Tell that to Richard Branson, he's a Brit, and he bailed out of there to go live on his own little island.



Oh, your in high school. Wait untill you have a mortgage and a couple of rug rats, and come back and tell me how that $62k a year works for ya!


yep, i knew that would be the response. but i truely would.

yes, but richard branson isnt me, is he? hes in the same position as the guy who said he work himself out of despondency. i blame the ruling classes.

im sorry, but this just takes the biscuit. 50000 pounds would be plenty for me and my family. at the minute me, my mum and my dad probably earn together about 32000 pounds, and here i am, sitting at this computer, and ive just eaten my tea, ok? and we're not hugely i debt. do you know why? because we have a government that is slightly more socialist than yours.

Right. Do you want me to tell you what right-wing politics is all about...again?

Ok. Being R/W is being about the individual. It's about everyone making their own way in life, everyone having the apparent ability to earn as much as they can, contribute or not contribute to society as they please and basically do, economically, what they wish. Unless of course you're born into poverty, in which case you're pretty much screwed. Or, in fact, if you're disabled and can't work, or you're black and the nice and kind CEO's don't happen to like you. But I digress...

Bush comes into power. He loosens anti-corporate legislation. He reduces the responsibility of the state. He lets the commercial sector do as it pleases, and he rants on about family values and being a good American. This is R/W. You want an example of something that isnt Bush? Look towards Scandinavia and see how very different society is. Massive taxes, massive welfare massive standard of life. THAT'S left-wing. That also works. America is in a recession. Bush's attitude is to decrease state intervention. What about him is not right-wing?

I'm 19, just in case you consider.
As for the american automobile industry: you will suckass as soon as the oil in Texas runs out (which will eventually happen) and you won't be affording cars with an expense of 25+ litres of fuel per 100km. Sorry, but I don't know the convertion value...
A government is needed to maintain order in a nation and to get through the rights of the working class against the CEO-s.
No govt on long terms means: no social treats whatsoever (holidays, medical treatments, public schools, ...); cartels/monopols leading to higher prices; no way from working class to the "elite", ...

Bugger off, wanker!

Hahaha, what a response. You just proved my point...thanks!

Oh, what the hell am I doing? You two are twelve, how would you know?

ACTUALLY, im eighteen, and dafydd is 16 - 18. hehehe.

Dafydd, America is not in a recession. Hate to break it to you...

"I dare any NRA-fanatic to tell me a REASONABLE reason to why he/she has a firearm"

My wife and I were pursued by a fanatic ex-husband abuser/stalker.
The courts will provide a protective order, but the police will not enforce it vigorously - that is, they will not place a full-time guard around us. This is a fact of life in the US.

My wife had her teeth beaten out of her mouth. She had a finger pulled out of her hand. She was stabbed. She was beaten on repeated occasions.

And while we were sleeping, he set fire to the house we were living in.

And because police are not like they are on CSI, he has never been more than arrested - never convicted.

So we both carry firearms at all times. We have the necessary permits. By law, if he appears within range, we have permission to open fire, because he poses a lethal threat - a threat he may carry out without warning, by his established pattern, and before any police can arrive. He is larger, stronger, and more skilled in hand to hand than either my wife or myself.

He knows we carry. He leaves us alone now. I'm sure if we were not carrying, I would have been killed this past summer.

Would you rather we were dead, or all three of us alive, and him leaving us alone?

That's the choice here in the states.
Does he really know? Why did he know your wife did't have a gun when these really gruesome things happened to her? What if he dodges your shot and turns your gun against you?
A good answer would be a better police and courtal enforcement, not lethal force or self-justice. That will only lead to more violence.

On Bush:

From looking it up, right-wing means, "Conservative or reactionary."

Conservative means, "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change."

Reactionary means, "Characterized by reaction, especially to progress or liberalism."

Given all this, socially I'd say Bush is mostly conservative. Although he favours increased federal funding of education and expanded medicare, most of his positions are keeping with the more traditional positions. In fact, even his programs claiming to help the poor I'd think could be considered "traditional" as it could be based on morality and religion.

Favouring corporations the way he does however is not a right-wing or conservative ideal, but neither is it progressive, liberal, or left-wing. Well... maybe slightly liberal. But mostly I'd call it pragmatic. He is doing what will bring him the greatest monetary benifit.

His expansion of medicare benifits the pharmecutical industry more than the poor. Privitizing social security will probably benifit the private sector and the rich at the expense of the poor. His education act I beleive took funds from poorer schools and gave funds to richer schools.

His expansions of government and unneccessary wars are following a tradition established by Reagan... so they could be called conservative. But they are more to increase his personal power and therefore again fall under pragmatism.

And to the person who claims taxes are theft, how would you replace them? Manditory service fees? Or donations?

Public radio lives off donations so perhaps government could too... what do you think?

Right. Do you want me to tell you what right-wing politics is all about...again?

Ok. Being R/W is being about the individual. It's about everyone making their own way in life, everyone having the apparent ability to earn as much as they can, contribute or not contribute to society as they please and basically do, economically, what they wish. Unless of course you're born into poverty, in which case you're pretty much screwed. Or, in fact, if you're disabled and can't work, or you're black and the nice and kind CEO's don't happen to like you. But I digress...

Bush comes into power. He loosens anti-corporate legislation. He reduces the responsibility of the state. He lets the commercial sector do as it pleases, and he rants on about family values and being a good American. This is R/W. You want an example of something that isnt Bush? Look towards Scandinavia and see how very different society is. Massive taxes, massive welfare massive standard of life. THAT'S left-wing. That also works. America is in a recession. Bush's attitude is to decrease state intervention. What about him is not right-wing?


You just don't get it. Recessions happen. Yes, it even effects socialist countries.

I'm hungry. I don't feel like cooking. So I'm going to BOb Evans, a nice low scale family restaurant. You need money to eat there. I like it.

I know what right wing is, and I know socialism kills. Have fun in Scandinavia.


Don't tread. God bless America, POS.

The Krebs Empire, not only can you not use paragraphs, but you managed to babble on for ages without making a point. You STILL think America is free? Even though you all do what you're told, buy what you're supposed to buy, hey you even think what they want you to think! Your government keeps screwing you all over, over and over again. And you don't realise it. You don't realise that the jobs your lovely government is creating don't hold any future, and that you're all destined to work part time and temp for the forseeable future. You don't realise that Bush, (who is in fact one of the most dangerous men in history - how many times over can he destory the world? How many other men could do that at the touch of a button?) uses war to cover up his own failings as an economist and a leader.

Don't bring up Oxbridge/tea drinking stereotypes, or I'll begin to mention the caricature of the average American - fat, stupid, racist and wielding a gun at pasers by because they might step on his property. The fact is that it's not just me who thinks there's something wrong with America - 80% of the world does! And enough of Europe (let me mention again the higher standard of living in European socialist states...hey I wonder why nobody has replied to this) to want to increase the powers of the EU just to stop you stupid, ignorant fools from destorying the world.

And you haven't liberated anybody, whoever said that Afghanistan was liberated. You've just tried ot make money out of their natural resources - was it Fox News that convinced you that Iraqi's are happy to see their children slaughtered by stupid American bomber jets that can't tell a family from the enemy? Are any of you Americans furious that your soldiers beat and humiliate the enemy and even managed to bomb British forces because you stupid twats can't even wage war properly?

What was the last world-changing innovation to come out of Indiana?

Okay, here goes: A Finnish company, Nanoway Oy, developed the world's first product based on nanoelectronics, the primary thermometer. (http://www.tekes.fi/eng/news/uutis_tiedot.asp?id=3088&paluu=) Let's see 56 innovations in the of similar importance in the field of electronics from the US, and I'll get back to you.

You see Made in Mexico and Made in China all over. So does that mean Mexico and China are full of enterprising, innovative, well educated, intelligent, competitive people who support economically sound theories?

Indiana? What the heck does that have to do with anything. That's basketball country. Fifty six world-changing innovations? I don't think Finland could boast of that many. I'm not sure building a better thermometer or better computer really qualifies as world-changing. Although the implications of nano-technology are pretty slick, it looks like an application of technology that was invented here.
How about mass production of consumer goods? Done in the U.S.
Just about anything produced by Bell Labs, including the telephone. U.S.
Transoceanic communications, maybe that was Great Britain.
The first digital computer? Sure. U.S.
The first transistor?Sure. U.S.
VLSI? Sure U.S.
The Cray supercomputer? U.S.
Cutting edge pharmaceuticals? U.S.
Manned Flight? U.S.
Non-government sponsored Spaceflight? U.S.
The internet? U.S.
Apple computers? U.S.
A successful capitalist economy that can accomplish all these things. Guess who?
Cold Fusion? Georgia Tech! Oops, not quite. Maybe that better thermometer would have come in handy.
Let's just face facts. There may be some neat stuff going on in the great white north, but they just aren't on the same plane as R&D in the U.S. Even Linus Torvaldus wouldn't be famous if he had tried to sell Linux. We already invented Bill Gates, for better or worse.

And America is in recession. Only Americans think it's not. The Pound is now 1.94 dollars and increasing.

On Bush:

From looking it up, right-wing means, "Conservative or reactionary."

Conservative means, "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change."

Reactionary means, "Characterized by reaction, especially to progress or liberalism."

Given all this, socially I'd say Bush is mostly conservative. Although he favours increased federal funding of education and expanded medicare, most of his positions are keeping with the more traditional positions. In fact, even his programs claiming to help the poor I'd think could be considered "traditional" as it could be based on morality and religion.

Favouring corporations the way he does however is not a right-wing or conservative ideal, but neither is it progressive, liberal, or left-wing. Well... maybe slightly liberal. But mostly I'd call it pragmatic. He is doing what will bring him the greatest monetary benifit.

His expansion of medicare benifits the pharmecutical industry more than the poor. Privitizing social security will probably benifit the private sector and the rich at the expense of the poor. His education act I beleive took funds from poorer schools and gave funds to richer schools.

His expansions of government and unneccessary wars are following a tradition established by Reagan... so they could be called conservative. But they are more to increase his personal power and therefore again fall under pragmatism.

And to the person who claims taxes are theft, how would you replace them? Manditory service fees? Or donations?

Public radio lives off donations so perhaps government could too... what do you think?


How would I replace taxes? I wouldn't.

And America is in recession. Only Americans think it's not. The Pound is now 1.94 dollars and increasing.

Oh well, makes our exports cheaper.

Are any of you Americans furious that your soldiers beat and humiliate the enemy and even managed to bomb British forces because you stupid twats can't even wage war properly?

If I recall, not only did we boot your asses off our continent, twice, but we also seemed to have to bail you whiney limeys out in two wars in the last century. You wanker.

You just don't get it. Recessions happen. Yes, it even effects socialist countries.

I'm hungry. I don't feel like cooking. So I'm going to BOb Evans, a nice low scale family restaurant. You need money to eat there. I like it.

I know what right wing is, and I know socialism kills. Have fun in Scandinavia.


Don't tread. God bless America, POS.


recessions would only affect socialist countries if they werre surrounded by capitalist ones. which they are. so get rid of capitalism, get rid of recessions! yay!

why does socialism kill? i dont get this, i would love for you to explain it to me. ive been to finland, its the best place ive ever been to, even better than wales and holland.no i havent been to america, but my dad has (you know, the one made redundant by thatcher?) and he said its the worst place hes ever been to.

dont tread? please explain. god bless lithuania!

ACTUALLY, im eighteen, and dafydd is 16 - 18. hehehe.

Your just a little kid. Man, I was in Iraq with kids your age. They pissed themselves.

Does he really know? Why did he know your wife did't have a gun when these really gruesome things happened to her? What if he dodges your shot and turns your gun against you?
A good answer would be a better police and courtal enforcement, not lethal force or self-justice. That will only lead to more violence.

Yes he does know. He's expressed his absolute fear of us because of it. And now, the police laugh at him.

He knew she was unarmed before, because, like some of you, she expressed a fear and hatred of guns and violence.

Fat chance on dodging the shot. I am a much better shot than most police, as is my wife.

The police and courts can't and won't do anything. They would need to post a guard around the clock on my wife for the rest of her life.

My wife's anti-stalking forum has women in the UK who are living in a state of complete terror for the same reasons.

If you had been attacked by this man, and seen the reaction you get from the police and courts, you would be carrying a weapon as well.

How would I replace taxes? I wouldn't.

So you are an extremist libertarian that wants no government whatsoever and corporate armies ruling the world?

Have you read the book this website was based on? :D

And America is in recession. Only Americans think it's not. The Pound is now 1.94 dollars and increasing.

how does that make it a recession?

No economist anywhere in the world could say our growing economy is in recession.

We're also growing in jobs. Steadily. So, where's the recession you're talking about.

BTW Smileyville, I've made the following bet with a few people, and I've never lost.

You stand behind a bulletproof berm 25 yards away. You'll hold onto the string of a helium balloon and let the balloon go up over the berm.

I'll start with the pistol in the holster. Another person will sound a signal (a whistle will do).

You try to pull the balloon down before I hit it. You can pull sideways, down, or a combination - just move as fast as you can.

I've never missed the balloon. I figure I won't miss his head. I usually fire three or four shots, with split times around 0.15 seconds. And that's with a .45

He won't have a head. So, let him dodge.

If I recall, not only did we boot your asses off our continent, twice, but we also seemed to have to bail you whiney limeys out in two wars in the last century. You wanker.

well done, you REBELLED AGAINST THE RULING CLASSES! now i wish you would do the same and get rid of capitalism.

now you see, in britain we hold a different view. we think that right wing america (that would be you lot) were all for isolationism, and staying out of the war. some of you were even supporting the nazis! we believe that america stayed out until we had fought ourselves to exhaustion, keeping ourselves in the war so that you would finally come to our aid. yes, you did bail us out, but only when you really had too. (that ocean liner in the first world war and pearl harbour) am i wrong?
but it doesent matter as far as i am concerened, because together we beat fascism.

no need to be rude, dear.

recessions would only affect socialist countries if they werre surrounded by capitalist ones. which they are. so get rid of capitalism, get rid of recessions! yay!

why does socialism kill? i dont get this, i would love for you to explain it to me. ive been to finland, its the best place ive ever been to, even better than wales and holland.no i havent been to america, but my dad has (you know, the one made redundant by thatcher?) and he said its the worst place hes ever been to.

dont tread? please explain. god bless lithuania!

Cuba, North Korea, USSR, and China. Need I say more.

Don't tread is an old revolutionary slogan in the states. It comes from a yellow flag with a venomous snake that was flown in battle. It means that we are peaceful only if you don't step on us.

FYI. I don't agree with the Iraq mess.

Don't like it, don't come around. I don't like Europe.

Your just a little kid. Man, I was in Iraq with kids your age. They pissed themselves.

im sure they did, and so would i! were you not scared?

well done, you REBELLED AGAINST THE RULING CLASSES! now i wish you would do the same and get rid of capitalism.

now you see, in britain we hold a different view. we think that right wing america (that would be you lot) were all for isolationism, and staying out of the war. some of you were even supporting the nazis! we believe that america stayed out until we had fought ourselves to exhaustion, keeping ourselves in the war so that you would finally come to our aid. yes, you did bail us out, but only when you really had too. (that ocean liner in the first world war and pearl harbour) am i wrong?
but it doesent matter as far as i am concerened, because together we beat fascism.

no need to be rude, dear.

Taverham, I would reserve my loathing of things European for the Frenchies.

We had to literally save their cheese-eating surrender monkey butts twice in one century. At least England fought - and fought hard. The English didn't surrender. The French seem to have relied on the rest of us to save them.

It may have been better if we had left the French to the Germans. By now, there wouldn't be a French-speaking person in the world...

So you are an extremist libertarian that wants no government whatsoever and corporate armies ruling the world?

Have you read the book this website was based on? :D

Are fictional books reality? The book is statist propaganda.

Cuba, North Korea, USSR, and China. Need I say more.

Don't tread is an old revolutionary slogan in the states. It comes from a yellow flag with a venomous snake that was flown in battle. It means that we are peaceful only if you don't step on us.

FYI. I don't agree with the Iraq mess.

Don't like it, don't come around. I don't like Europe.

yes you do need to say more, sorry. only when there is a majority of socialist countries will socialism work.

thankyou.

good, neither do i!

im not planning to. but i would beg you to come to europe, its great.

Indiana?It's a state which happens to have about the same population as Finland.

Fifty six world-changing innovations? I don't think Finland could boast of that many.And I did not say Finland could. I was saying you should be able to name 56 US innovations for each Finnish one I come up with. And within the same time frame, too -- Finland as a sovereign nationstate has only existed since 1917, and was a pretty crappy place to live in up to WW2.

I'm not sure building a better thermometer or better computer really qualifies as world-changing. Although the implications of nano-technology are pretty slick, it looks like an application of technology that was invented here.By that same principle, most everything that comes out of the fields of medicine and electronics, and certainly things like private spaceflight, are nothing but applications of technology invented where ever. That would limit the total amount of innovations in the world to maybe a couple of hundred. Of those, it might be that none came out of Finland.

Let's just face facts. There may be some neat stuff going on in the great white north, but they just aren't on the same plane as R&D in the U.S.Correct. The US pumps somewhere around 60 times as much resources into R&D annually as does Finland, they are nowhere near the same level.

I take it that you concede the points about competitiveness and lack of "Made in Finland" tags since you didn't respond to those bits?

Gotta love comments such as "A very weak currency isn't a problem, at least exports are cheaper!!!12". Also, the idea of getting rid of taxes is great -- and also directly contradicts everything that is being said about guns maybe not being as necessary if law enforcement worked better. I bet laws would be enforced wonderfully if the police and the legislative and judicial systems were completely unfunded.

im sure they did, and so would i! were you not scared?

No, I was angry and excited. I've been around the block a couple of times. I felt sorry for em. However, they grow up fast.

Taverham, I would reserve my loathing of things European for the Frenchies.

We had to literally save their cheese-eating surrender monkey butts twice in one century. At least England fought - and fought hard. The English didn't surrender. The French seem to have relied on the rest of us to save them.

It may have been better if we had left the French to the Germans. By now, there wouldn't be a French-speaking person in the world...

oh dear, i love france!

ok, possibly they were thouroughly beaten in the second world war, but they fought on with the free french. in the first world war though, they fought incredably hard, the battle of verdun for example. although in the end it was an utterly pointless sacrifice.

No, I was angry and excited. I've been around the block a couple of times. I felt sorry for em. However, they grow up fast.

are you scared about going back?

One key point: guns are not remarkable in being especially deadly, they are remarkable in being selective and useable by anyone - even the weak, old or infirm. There are plenty of everyday objects that make much deadlier weapons, but which are not selective, or which are only useable by strong men. Examples... a tire iron or kitchen knife, selective but only useable by a strong, healthy person... a gallon of gasoline and a lighter, useable by anyone but not selective. The properties of being selective and useable by anyone are, of course, the ideal properties of a defensive weapon (along with compactness and light weight). Even in the military, rifles and pistols are primarily used in a defensive capacity (the preferred offensive weapons being machineguns, bombs, artillery and tanks). Guns are the great equalizer... they are the only things that makes a 80-year old granny as effective on the defense as an 18-year old male gang member with a knife is on the offense.

Banning guns would do absolutely nothing to reduce violent crime, since other weapons which are just as deadly are readily available as everyday objects (exercise: have a look around for anything that can be used as a weapon - there are probably over a hundred lethal weapons in the room with you). Banning guns would do a hell of a lot to prevent successful self-defense, especially in the groups that are at higher risk: women, the elderly, and the infirm. From my personal point of view, I will always be able to defend myself until I get really old, whether it is with a tire iron, baseball bat, knife, screwdriver, pen or barehanded if it came to that... and I have done so by the way. My wife needs a gun in order to have any chance of fighting off a burly 200-lb bad guy. If it was a choice between both her and her attacker having guns or both having bare hands or knives or whatever, she would choose guns in a millisecond... she is a very good shot indeed.

Regarding distinction between types of guns... there really isn't any except perhaps between concealable and not, but it is easy enough to modify something to be concealable. Any "ordinary hunting gun" is exactly the same as a "military sniper rifle" (e.g. the Marine Corps M40A1 is actually the civilian Remington 700), and if you're trained you can shoot and hit with it faster and harder than you can with a (so-called) "assault rifle". Almost any gun will in the right hands provide a high rate of fire... you can fire 15-30 shots per minute using almost anything, and a double-barrel shotgun puts more lead in the air than a submachine gun. The limiting factor is usually the ability to aim, and (think self-defense) the ability for a person with little training to use a weapon under extreme stress. Which is the best reason for semi-automatics (revolvers are hard to fire accurately if you're in a hurry) and for large magazine capacities (when you're defending yourself, you will miss at least 4 times out of 5).

If you are opposed to guns and live in the US, I have a little exercise for you... go to a shooting range, preferably with a friend, and on the weekend. You don't have to shoot, just think of it as research. While you are there, observe the other people there... on the range close to where I live a pretty typical group might be: a young guy with his girlfriend or wife, an old black woman, two young asian girls, a family with several kids, and one or two guys who look like retired cops. There are relatively few macho guys, there are often more women than men, and you would never, and I mean never, think that some of the people there are regular shooters if you met them on the street. People tend to be extremely friendly and polite, and meticulous about following the safety rules. Or go to a gun store... last time I was at one the other customer was a very nice old lady buying a snub S&W .357 magnum with rosewood grips. I don't think she wanted that for hunting... on the other hand I pity the next punk who thinks he's found an easy victim. 'Nuf said.

Because guns kill and we dont need them. :rolleyes: Though thats a bit niave but the average person does not need assault weapons either.


Whether or not we need an Assault Rifle is Irrelevant. Did you know that Alcohol kills a lot of people and we sure as hell don't need it but you don't want to ban that right?

Taverham, I would reserve my loathing of things European for the Frenchies.

We had to literally save their cheese-eating surrender monkey butts twice in one century. At least England fought - and fought hard. The English didn't surrender. The French seem to have relied on the rest of us to save them.

It may have been better if we had left the French to the Germans. By now, there wouldn't be a French-speaking person in the world...

The French also fought hard... they just are the closest nation to germany and have a lot of border to defend, so in both World Wars, germany went through Belgium and attakced France before they could prepare an adequate defence.

are you scared about going back?

I'm mostly scared about how my wife would feel if I died. I kinda want to go back to help boots get out alive.

I'm hungry. It is dinner time here, and I have not eaten all day.


Peace. Don't tread.

Actually Americans cannot bear arms unless they are in the militia, which is now the National Guard. But, Congress has allowed people to own guns because it isn't a large enough problem with 1500 gun homocides everyday.

I'm mostly scared about how my wife would feel if I died. I kinda want to go back to help boots get out alive.

I'm hungry. It is dinner time here, and I have not eaten all day.


Peace. Don't tread.


well good luck.

Actually Americans cannot bear arms unless they are in the militia, which is now the National Guard. But, Congress has allowed people to own guns because it isn't a large enough problem with 1500 gun homocides everyday.

Sel, let's set you straight.

The militia, as defined by US Code, is ALL male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45.

It is not the National Guard.

There are not 1500 gun homicides per day.

As far as accidents go, which we'll take first, we have:
41,200 deaths related to motor vehicle accidents,
16,600 in falls at home and on the job,
4,100 from water in drowning,
9,400 from poisoning, in the same year,
3,700 due to fire or burns,
3,200 due to choking, and
1400 from guns

Hmm. Let's take intentional use of guns:
In 1996, we had 40,000 deaths by an intentional use of a firearm. A lot!
But, that's:
30,862 suicides (1996) which may have been completed by other means without a gun.
Of the 10,000 remaining deaths, we can eliminate approximately 1400 as accidental which gets the total down to 8600 - presumably the number who die by "hostile" gunfire.
But what we cannot do is weed out the gang-related or drug-related killings or the justifiable homicides where battered spouses kill an abuser and similar situations. Using the 8600 figure, that's 0.0035% of the population. If we
consider the 8600 in light of their 3 million gun-carrying civilians per day, then we are facing a yearly "misuse" percentage of less than 0.00008%. That would be a 99.99% safety rate!

Is your car that safe? Maybe we need to outlaw cars, stairs, ladders, swimming pools, tubs, buckets, household chemicals, matches, lighters, and any food big enough to choke on.

Examples... a tire iron or kitchen knife, selective but only useable by a strong, healthy person... a gallon of gasoline and a lighter, useable by anyone but not selective.It should also be noted that anyone capable of using a tire iron or a kitchen knife to kill a person could use a firearm to kill the person with less trouble and significantly less risk to him/herself, at range, and could repeat that action to engage a large number of opponents. While many firearms might not be more lethal per attack than a gallon of gasoline, they still make it a hell of a lot easier for the average person (or even a strong, rich person) to kill a lot of people. For better or for worse.

Any "ordinary hunting gun" is exactly the same as a "military sniper rifle" (e.g. the Marine Corps M40A1 is actually the civilian Remington 700), and if you're trained you can shoot and hit with it faster and harder than you can with a (so-called) "assault rifle".The first bit is often true. The M40A1 is not exactly the same as the basic Remington Model 700, but the modifications are minor. Certainly you can reasonably use most military sniper rifles for hunting, and several armies use hunting rifles without any modification for sniping.

The second bit, well, I'm willing to bet any USMC sniper would trade the M40A1 in for an M16 or M4 for MOUT and CQB in general. At long ranges it is true, but most criminal gun attacks happen at very close range.

Yeah, like before Sept. 11, 2001. We were spending boat loads of money on weapons and intelligence and it sure stopped those planes...hey wait a minute, WE GOT POUNDED!!


That's an intelligence issue... besides, we did have F18s patrolling the skies after we realized they were coordinated attacks.


And I'm not a Republican, so go hooray someplace else. Republican and Democrat meddling in the affairs of Americans and in the business of other countries for the last 40 years is how we got into the screwed up boat we're in now. Thanks red and blue states!!
That's why I tell people I'm a conservative, not Republican. I don't agree with Bush on some things, like his Immigration "solution." I want strict, tough borders.

Thomas Jefferson himself warned about the idiocy and expense of a military industrial complex. He used those words. The second amendment was supposed to garuntee a standing army of militia, but keep in mind the founding fathers were not in favor of a large, expensive meddlesome military like we have today.
The military has its uses, especially since we're the last superpower. Like Uncle Ben said, "With great power, comes great responsibility." *spiderweb in your eye!*

Same thing about social 'policies'. If the Republicans were really 'conservative' (here's a hint-- they're not), you wouldn't here a peep out of them about gay marriage, abortion, drug laws or anything except for property laws, and they would almost always fall on the side of the individual, and not the bloated corporate welfare recipients. Instead, we get to listen to Republicans moan incessently about 'moral decay' and 'family values' and lowering taxes by $50 for a family of 4. Geez.
Everyone knows that Washington is swamped with 'soft' money and it's not just Republicans. If anything, Democrats have more 'soft' money but that's besides the point. If only we could force the big money out of politics without trampling on people's rights like McCain and Feingold did with campaign finance reform. One thing about abortion...I believe it's murder, pure and simple. And for the gov't to allow it is wrong. You know, a person is legally dead when their brain-waves cease, so why can't we declare them alive when their brain-waves first begin? Anyway, that's for another thread. I agree with you on many of these social issues, not all though.


You want conservative? I'll give you conservative: me. I'm a Libertarian. I'm pro-everything. I'm especially pro-not wasting money on foreign wars to spread puppet democracies, I'm especially pro-keeping mouths shut about 'religion' and 'morals' and 'marriage'. I'm even pro-social programs, just as long as they're not tied to some stupid and ill thought out crusade (like funding sex ed as long as the sex ed taught is abstinence only), and that programs are done at a state and local level so that the communities have local control over what happens, and isn't dictated to by an 'expert' 3500 miles away.
I agree. Gov't should do a few things and do them well. States' Rights, bitches!


Republicans piss me off, ya know why? Freedom. They don't have a f**king clue as to what the word means. You can't say 'I'm for freedom' and 'I'm for the PATRIOT act', they're mutually exclusive. If you were really for freedom, you wouldn't care if some Hare Krishna somewhere smoked a joint before getting an abortion from a gay doctor. Instead, there's this weird desire to try and convert and save the world. Well we don't wanna be saved!! Hey, not all Republicans are united behind some warped version of conservatism. Especially me. What ever happened to the days of Ronald Reagan? Republicans have forgotten the lessons of small gov't. However, we do need a large military buildup like we have now because the times call for it. Security is a big issue. Nevermind how we got here, we're here right now and what are we going to do about it? 9/11 already showed that we can't lock our borders and play defense. We need to go into these peoples homes and stop them from plotting against us. And don't get me started on the Religious Right. I understand there's active discrimination against Judeo-Christian morality and we do need to protect it, but stop acting like the local preachers who yell things like, "Gays are going to hell! If you don't convert NOW, Jesus will cast you into hell!" and I've even seen someone holding the sign: "Sinners and those insured for damnation: Catholics, Gays/Lesbians, Whores/Whoremongerers...." and the list does on. Yeah, this is a strawman argument, but I'm tired of seeing obvious prejudices. Since when does being a Catholic mean you're going to hell?!?!?!


There. I feel better. I got that off my chest. Please don't think I'm attacking or flaming. You're a fellow American and I know we both want what's best for our great land, right?

Right! :fluffle: God Bless the USA! Me too
:D

Hey My Gun Not Yours, just curious. (don't answer if it's too touchy or anything) What did you/your wife do to piss of your wife's ex? Is he just crazy? In any case, I wish you good luck, and better aim. (not kidding about the aim.)

Six years before I met her, she had enough of his abuse (12 years of beating) and left him. Divorce.

He didn't want her to leave. He never acknowledged the divorce, even though it was official. He stalked her and repeatedly attacked her.

On our first date, two years ago, he attacked both of us in a restaurant - we were just sitting there and he leaped on her. No initial words, nothing.

He stalked us both from then on. And burned my last house down - with my wife and I, and three children inside (including his own son).

He is extremely fearful of us now. He knows for a fact that we're armed.

That's the thing though. If someone supports the Iraq war, and similar interventions in the name of liberation, they should be in favour of a global body that carries it out, rather than a small coalition, hence they should be in favour of a UN-type organisation, as this is the form best suited to the task. More resources, more support etc. As has been pointed out however, the UN as it is currently is will not carry this task out.

If you do not support such interventions, the only alternative is to tighten up your own borders, or collaboratively, form an alliance with like-minded nation to protect your own shores, and letting nations not in this alliance (which can be formal or informal) obtain democracy by themselves. Which is fine if that's what you want, but understandably hard for those countries to achieve if their rulers are heavily militaristic.

I'm not for the war in Iraq. I'm for fixing up my country first. We've got enough hunger, crime, and other issues to fix first.

Personally, I don't understand why the 2nd ammendment has been kept in the american constitution after the Civil War. I agree with hunting rifles and such, but being able to possess guns only creates paranoia. You know "He could have a gun, and if I don't have one, he might shoot me". As with the property laws: you can shoot anyone coming on your property. These laws are relics from a time you had to literally claim your turf. No socially intelligent person would want them to stay in place.

I dare any NRA-fanatic to tell me a REASONABLE reason to why he/she has a firearm (excluding for hunting, as mentioned above). Answers like "It's my right! My neighbor could shoot me! My dad was shot (it won't bring him back)!Come here and ask me this question in person!" don't count...

The way you state the term "reasonable", tells me that you won't accept any reason whatsoever--especially from an unreliable NRA fanatic.

It should also be noted that anyone capable of using a tire iron or a kitchen knife to kill a person could use a firearm to kill the person with less trouble and significantly less risk to him/herself, at range, and could repeat that action to engage a large number of opponents.

Only if they are unarmed opponents.

While many firearms might not be more lethal per attack than a gallon of gasoline, they still make it a hell of a lot easier for the average person to kill a lot of people.

Not really. 9/11? I can think of a few similar ways to kill lots of people that do not require anything that is commonly recognized as a weapon. Guns are selective, and anything you do with them would be one at a time. They work pretty well as intimidation weapons for crime but that is because of the near-magical status they have these days. Generally, they are excellent defensive weapons but poor offensive weapons.

Think of it this way... you want to rob a store. You have a handgun. You know that one in five of the people of the store has a handgun. How do you feel? I would imagine you are totally scared shitless at that point.

The first bit is often true. The M40A1 is not exactly the same as the basic Remington Model 700, but the modifications are minor. Certainly you can reasonably use most military sniper rifles for hunting, and several armies use hunting rifles without any modification for sniping.

Right, the point is there is no possible separation between "hunting" and "military".

The second bit, well, I'm willing to bet any USMC sniper would trade the M40A1 in for an M16 or M4 for MOUT and CQB in general.

Well, obviously, but a good ol' lever-action would do in a pinch... or a pump shotgun or whatever. Besides, one of the main things about the military is they should be able to advance rapidly against strong opposition, which is an entirely different set of requirements from what a defensive civilian would encounter. Let me put it to you this way... suppose there is an angry biker gang armed with whatever that wants to kick my ass, and all I have is a Remington 700... I would do fine, I think.

At long ranges it is true, but most criminal gun attacks happen at very close range.

Most criminal attacks don't use rifles, and certainly not semiauto rifles... under 0.1 percent use anything similar. In fact most don't use firearms at all, even though firearms are readily available (actually cheaper on the black market than legal).


I guess my main points are that guns (especially handguns) strongly favor the defense, and that different kinds of guns are not that different in terms of practical capabilities.

AMEN! Let me guess: you're no american, either?

That just means you have to look at the Federalist Papers, so you can actually read the intent of the founding fathers. It was to defend against our own government.

it really annoys me when people think that criminals are crminals because they want to be. they commit crimes because they are poor, or they are addicted to drugs. these are two things that are out of their control. drugs are out of their control for obvious reasons. being poor is out of their control because it is imposed on them through poverty, imposed through capitalism. eradicate capitalism, eradicate poverty, eradicte crime. simple, isnt it?
and what REALLY annoys me is that people who are higher up in the world of capitalism want to 'reserve the right' to shoot any of these unlucky souls.

I beg to differ. They had the choice NOT to take the drugs and get addicted. It's every person's responsiblity to be in charge of themselves. If they decide to take drugs, they also take whatever benefits/consequences go with it.

I've been poor. I've also worked my way out of it. I'm no superman, so I'm assuming every other able-bodied person can do it as well.

We're only victims if we let ourselves be.

One of the most dangerous men to ever have walked the Earth? If you request, I'll find a list of one hundred people who are or were more dangerous. I could only laugh as hard at the fact that you called me a complete idiot. Sorry I'm so stupid, I guess we in America need to go to Cambridge or Oxford and drink our tea to open our minds, right? If you love the majority of America, you must only love the people who actually think that Britain is worth a farthing. I know you're not. This is what liberal BBC and the skewed viewpoint of reality does. You try to sound so strong; the pound isnt worth in any banks except your own. Other nations hoard our dollars. And you guys still delude yourselves with monarchy... But thats a story for another day. Let's look at the facts- 51 percent of the people voted for Bush. I consider it a triumph of democracy that a person was peacably elected at all. I am, clearly, a conservative, but I praise the actions of most liberals who accepted the fact that democracy's gears wound and worked. This was a clear, albeit not decisive victory. Democracy is what the people want. If yout think that they voted wrongly, ok. Fine. But the candidate that the people elected was put into office. Isn't that democracy? Everyone realizes your maniacal ideals? Just what kind of army do you think supports you? My point is, you must've missed it, that democracy was served. People generally understand this. Do we really need to care about the whim of the rest of the world, if they only want to screw us? Do you think we're really enacting a disservice upon Iraq by liberating them? Should the United States care what one sniveling little British asshole thinks? Maybe your news stations didn't show the anti-Bush ads coming from America and you assumed the world lived and died with what the British Isles saw on their tellies? No Bush has been villified too. How he talks and speaks? He looks and stands awkwardly, repeats himself, and may say uncharacteristic or unintended things with unnecessary conviction. He's been caricaturized as a pig in literally hundreds of newspapers I've seen. Do you think people voted for Bush because he was suave and certain? Far from it. I'll be the first to admit that I don't like to see Bush give speeches. A celebrity? Good God, you can't be serious. But he did expel Saddam Hussein, and that was good, screw what the rest of the world thinks. We're the ones losing soldiers here, the British effort in this war is infinitessimal. And you even begin to cite Afghanistan? That's a textbook success story; they have their first democratic president in history. And now I turn to capitalism. Do you think that socialism will just suddenly work? Centuries of failed enterprises, even socialistic settlements in America failed to work. Capitalism is the only thing that lets freedom exist in its current form. We invented the American Dream, and millions of poor immigrants came to pursue it. Have you ever thought to consider that after two centuries of people earning their way through life on their own merit, after millions of people who were raised up from their ethnic lands to the hope of a financial future, after the hyperbolization in Horatio Alger's books, there is actually a reason capitalism works? People can do as they please in America.


Hey! What's wrong with tea??? :D

I'm 19, just in case you consider.
As for the american automobile industry: you will suckass as soon as the oil in Texas runs out (which will eventually happen) and you won't be affording cars with an expense of 25+ litres of fuel per 100km. Sorry, but I don't know the convertion value...
A government is needed to maintain order in a nation and to get through the rights of the working class against the CEO-s.
No govt on long terms means: no social treats whatsoever (holidays, medical treatments, public schools, ...); cartels/monopols leading to higher prices; no way from working class to the "elite", ...

And that's been fed to you by your government. :) Thanks for playing.

I usually fire three or four shots, with split times around 0.15 seconds. And that's with a .45

Nice shooting! I assume you're using some version of an M1911A1 since that would be just a *bit* hard with a double-action pistol. I've also found it is possible to fire off a second shot before the first hits at 150 feet, which would make the timing about 0.15 seconds. Dang.

I really sympathize with your stalker story... I don't have anything as dramatic but my wife was robbed at gunpoint a few years ago which was the catalyst for us to look into better ways of defending ourselves. My wife still doesn't like guns per se but she is very, very good with them.

That's an intelligence issue... besides, we did have F18s patrolling the skies after we realized they were coordinated attacks.

But, the f18's were a tad late. C'mon, our policies ober the last many years has been meddling to say the least. But having that large intellegence and military didn't do us alot of good then, did it? Which is exactly my point. Instead of using military spending and foreign aid to try and bolster ties around the world, why not have more reponsible foreign policy that allows for free commerce, and not forced commerce dictated by our 'moral principles'. Look at how we've dealt with S. America, ca you really say we've improved the lives of people in Columbia with our military and police aid there?



That's why I tell people I'm a conservative, not Republican. I don't agree with Bush on some things, like his Immigration "solution." I want strict, tough borders.


The military has its uses, especially since we're the last superpower. Like Uncle Ben said, "With great power, comes great responsibility." *spiderweb in your eye!*


I agree. Gov't should do a few things and do them well. States' Rights, bitches! Hey, not all Republicans are united behind some warped version of conservatism. Especially me. What ever happened to the days of Ronald Reagan? Republicans have forgotten the lessons of small gov't. However, we do need a large military buildup like we have now because the times call for it. Security is a big issue. Nevermind how we got here, we're here right now and what are we going to do about it? 9/11 already showed that we can't lock our borders and play defense. We need to go into these peoples homes and stop them from plotting against us. And don't get me started on the Religious Right. I understand there's active discrimination against Judeo-Christian morality and we do need to protect it, but stop acting like the local preachers who yell things like, "Gays are going to hell! If you don't convert NOW, Jesus will cast you into hell!" and I've even seen someone holding the sign: "Sinners and those insured for damnation: Catholics, Gays/Lesbians, Whores/Whoremongerers...." and the list does on. Yeah, this is a strawman argument, but I'm tired of seeing obvious prejudices. Since when does being a Catholic mean you're going to hell?!?!?!

OK, do me a favor go to
www.lp.org (http://www.lp.org) and take the test. I sense the budding Libertarian in you, and would like to see it come out.
:D

Nice shooting! I assume you're using some version of an M1911A1 since that would be just a *bit* hard with a double-action pistol. I've also found it is possible to fire off a second shot before the first hits at 150 feet, which would make the timing about 0.15 seconds. Dang.

Well, there's always a Glock 21, in the same caliber. Just as quick with the trigger reset. But yeah, most DAOs would have a LOT of draw on the trigger.

Actually Americans cannot bear arms unless they are in the militia, which is now the National Guard. But, Congress has allowed people to own guns because it isn't a large enough problem with 1500 gun homocides everyday.

In 2000, there were 3,482 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.
http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html

Whelp, looks like we'll be banning WATER any day now... ;)

BTW, depending on your local/state laws, you may already be in a militia and not know it. Technically, I'm supposed to show up on the town green once a year with a "long gun or two pistols, in good repair", a sturdy pair of boots and no less that 3 days of food. :)

BTW, depending on your local/state laws, you may already be in a militia and not know it. Technically, I'm supposed to show up on the town green once a year with a "long gun or two pistols, in good repair", a sturdy pair of boots and no less that 3 days of food. :)

LOL. Is it really "gun or pistols" not "gun and pistols"? What about ammo?

My personal fave is an old Virginia (?) law that says that if you're male and over 15 you *must* be armed whenever you go to church.

oh dear, i love france!

ok, possibly they were thouroughly beaten in the second world war, but they fought on with the free french. in the first world war though, they fought incredably hard, the battle of verdun for example. although in the end it was an utterly pointless sacrifice.

IMHO, France ceased being riteous with the fall of the 3rd Republic in 1946.
After that, they started to become self indulgent and ceased to be a positive force in the world. Cf: Vietnam, Algeria and DeGaulle pulling France out of full NATO collaboration.

As an example, right *now* Canada has four times the troops in Afghanistan as opposed to France. And they are not only on the UN Security Council, but paint themselves as a world power. Pfah.

LOL. Is it really "gun or pistols" not "gun and pistols"? What about ammo?

My personal fave is an old Virginia (?) law that says that if you're male and over 15 you *must* be armed whenever you go to church.
Are you saying I've broken the law many times or does my Quad (bible, etc) count as armed?

LOL. Is it really "gun or pistols" not "gun and pistols"? What about ammo?

My personal fave is an old Virginia (?) law that says that if you're male and over 15 you *must* be armed whenever you go to church.

Back in the old days, they assumed people were responsible and not idiots and would bring rounds. :)
These days, people go crazy if Starbucks is out of skim milk...

You know, that might have *just* kept those churches from being burned down a few years back... (I lived in Herndon from 1996-99).

Are you saying I've broken the law many times or does my Quad (bible, etc) count as armed?

Um, I think the Bible works better as armor ;) I think the minimum you need is a long gun or sword.

The way you state the term "reasonable", tells me that you won't accept any reason whatsoever--especially from an unreliable NRA fanatic.

I got more of a clue from :

"These laws are relics.."
"No socially intelligent person.."
"NRA-fanatic.." and
"Come here and ask me this question in person!"

That's why I didn't bother replying to this flame-bait.

Um, I think the Bible works better as armor ;) I think the minimum you need is a long gun or sword.

Nah, they proved that bibles don't stop a .22 even--saw it on Mythbusters. :D

A very large, hardbound encyclopedia stopped the .22, though.

NO single book stopped the .357 mag! :cool:

About repelling invasions and such... some time after WW2 a retired Japanise admiral met a US admiral (I forget the exact reference) and the US admiral asked him if they had ever planned a land invasion of the continental USA. The Japanese laughed and replied that they had considered the idea, very briefly, but rejected it when they realized they would face "a rifleman behind every blade of grass" (exact quote).

I ran some back-of-the-envelope numbers based on which I think that if the Chinese decided to invade California today and landed with their *entire* army completely unobstructed by our army or navy, they will be wiped out within days by the general population (assuming the people were willing to fight them, which I think is pretty fair to assume). Actually I don't think they could even take Los Angeles. Needless to say with the same assumptions they could easily take over any European country except Switzerland and (maybe) Finland.

Slow/stealthy invasion works better, unfortunately. In parts of the southwestern USA there are routine shooting engagements between US Border Patrol and various groups from Mexico, *some of which are in Mexican Army uniform*. This happens on the US side of the border. You may not believe that but it's true. Since the BP does not like being shot at, some parts of the border are only *effectively* patrolled by citizens' militia, who are in firefights *often*. What is going on is a low-level war where the objective of the enemy is to keep free traffic across the border by harassing our patrols.

Sorry, I forgot to put a ;) in, that was supposed to be a joke. I'm well aware of the link between gun restrictions and firearm related murder rates.

Here's my not funny and vary serious controversial statement: the solution to probably 90% (my own guesstimate) of the gun and violent crime problems in the USA could be solved by 1) ending the stupid, pointless and expensive 'war on drugs', and 2) abolishing the death penalty (there have been studies that show a link between higher violent crime rate in states that impose the death penalty and those that do not). and (the most controversial) 3) I think that most of the funding that is sent overseas in the form of 'foreign aid' and money wasted on exotic weapons systems could be better spent on improving our own educational and infrastructure systems.

Wow, I'm not a good conservative, am I?
I'm with you on #1 and close on #3 We can't afford to continue spending at current rates. That money should not be borrowed to begin with.
I'm not with you #2. I'm not a strong supporter of the death penalty, but I'm certainly not convinced that it increases crime. I'd like to see it applied in a more sensical and consistant manner.

Personally, I don't understand why the 2nd ammendment has been kept in the american constitution after the Civil War. I agree with hunting rifles and such, but being able to possess guns only creates paranoia. You know "He could have a gun, and if I don't have one, he might shoot me". As with the property laws: you can shoot anyone coming on your property. These laws are relics from a time you had to literally claim your turf. No socially intelligent person would want them to stay in place.:upyours: You sound like someone with a future in the public sector.

I dare any NRA-fanatic to tell me a REASONABLE reason to why he/she has a firearm (excluding for hunting, as mentioned above). Answers like "It's my right! My neighbor could shoot me! My dad was shot (it won't bring him back)!Come here and ask me this question in person!" don't count...I'm not in the NRA nor am I a big fan, but I'll bite. I bought my first gun when I got a job as a security guard. I spend my weekend work nights sitting and walking around outside by myself in a not-so-lovely part of central phoenix. I have a gun or on me whenever I'm alone. Although my employer expects me to avoid confrontations, not all confrontations are avoidable. I am not comfortable confronting some people unarmed. My job is too dangerous to go unarmed. I don't give a rats ass if you think that's reasonable or not.

Bush isn't right-wing???!!!!!!!! Are you entirely out of your annoying little mind???? Do you know what right wing is?
I'm with you. It's hard to argue that Bush isn't right-wing.

Let me explain it to you. A Laissez-faire attitude to the economy OR society. Bush has that to both. He doesn't intervene in business, and doesn't have decent tax levels. Bush is the opitomy of right-wing politics.

Well in that case, Bush isn't right-wing at all. He's quite the interventionist in both domestic and foreign policy. I agree that level of taxation here is anything but decent. It's economically destructive and is nearly as bad as the worst Europe has to offer.

Tell that to Richard Branson, he's a Brit, and he bailed out of there to go live on his own little island.


It's always been common for wealthy productive types to step outside political boundries to avoid taxes. I think that's part of the reason why global government is such popular idea.

We were giving paychecks to people who had been fired years ago or people who never worked in public education! Money is not the problem with our education system, it's the beauracracy that has built up around it. $200 for toilet paper? $50 for a school pencil? Sure...
Small compared to DC's school budget, and they have some of the worst schools in the nation.

If you insist on your constitutional right to bear arms, I suggest we stick to the kind of guns that could be envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution. Even in their wildest dreams they could not think of the kind of guns that are presently sold on the open market.

Small compared to DC's school budget, and they have some of the worst schools in the nation.

...and highest crime rates.

Everyone else realises than Bush is one of the most dangerous men to have ever walked the earth - why can't you???
You have Putin pulling the shit he's been doing lately and your worried about Bush? Interesting.

If you insist on your constitutional right to bear arms, I suggest we stick to the kind of guns that could be envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution. Even in their wildest dreams they could not think of the kind of guns that are presently sold on the open market.

By the same logic you need to get rid of your computer.

It's odd that Thomas Jefferson was the one that effectively established the American gun industry w/ some of the highest technological advacements in the world but couldn't imagine anything further.

it really annoys me when people think that criminals are crminals because they want to be. they commit crimes because they are poor, or they are addicted to drugs. these are two things that are out of their control. drugs are out of their control for obvious reasons. being poor is out of their control because it is imposed on them through poverty, imposed through capitalism. eradicate capitalism, eradicate poverty, eradicte crime. simple, isnt it?
and what REALLY annoys me is that people who are higher up in the world of capitalism want to 'reserve the right' to shoot any of these unlucky souls.
And this explains why illegal mexican immigrants are all evil and produce the most criminals in our society, ohhhh, you mean they don't. WOOOOOOOOOOOW.

yes and no, first of all who says mexico and or canada arent just itching to take us out? we dont know. Germany tried to get mexico to attack us in world war one. secondly england was planning an invasion of the US just before world war two which was why they were so well prepared to fight germany.

That’s right, the peaceful people of Canada want American civilians disarmed so they will only have to fight your overwhelming military power when they invade using Maple Syrup powered weapons. I'm convinced.

Did Mexico invade the US during WW2? No, I don't think they did. If I invite you to rob someone’s house does that makes you a burglar or the target of an unwanted invitation?

England was so well prepared for Germany's attack during WW2 that they: (a) were heavily bombed (b) had severe rationing (c) begging aid from anyone who could provide a gun. The myth of Empire was effectively ended and American interests bought huge amounts of English business because the UK needed to borrow money to buy weapons. Sounds like a well prepared nation preparing for an invasion to me.

Where do you get your facts? I recommend getting a passport and taking a trip to some other part of the world. Take a working holiday. Most people out here are really nice.

right, pacifist me has got angry...

socialism and capitalism DID NOT FAIL. the system used in russia was STATE CAPITALISM, a form of capitalism, just socialistified. what went wrong was capitalists in russia did not want to let go of what they had. it is very difficult to change a persons mindset away from capitalism when they are doing fine out of it with their plasma telvisions. but one day it will happen, of this i am sure.

just look at all the poverty in the world. does it not make you feel ANYTHING?

i try to be as nice as i can whenever i post replies, but i cant take it much more. i fugging hate capitalists and right wingers.
Actual capitalism require the flow of product to be regulated only by supply and demand. The USSR had a system completely opposite that. How exactly is that in any way, shape, or form capitalism?

Don't be an idiot. Capitalism didn't create the web, the web evolved over a period of time and was done so by groups of comuter scientists. Capitalism turned the web into the pop-up throwing, pornography filled, money-making-scam shithole that it regularly is. The web would have been best entirely free-source, true with its original intent.
Without capitalism it is unlikely that computers would have been invented by now. Therefore he is correct.

England was so well prepared for Germany's attack during WW2 that they: (a) were heavily bombed (b) had severe rationing (c) begging aid from anyone who could provide a gun. The myth of Empire was effectively ended and American interests bought huge amounts of English business because the UK needed to borrow money to buy weapons. Sounds like a well prepared nation preparing for an invasion to me.



An interesting fact is that during the early parts of the war, Americans donated firearms for English citizens' use in case of an invasion from Germany. The majority of those guns that survived the years have been or are being destroyed under the UK's gun bans.

I also love the argument put forward by right-wingers - I know some rich person that used to be poor, and HE says that capitalism is great and super and doesn't want to give any of his money away!

We are surrounded by ignorant rich kids who enjoy being indoctrinated and voting Bush.
The irony here of course is that I'm really a lazy bastard. But I can step away from my lazy bastardness and realize while government handouts would be nice they would actually do more harm then good. So ramen it is.

Without capitalism it is unlikely that computers would have been invented by now. Therefore he is correct.

The breakup of Ma Bell allowed the widespread use of fiberoptics. Those handy things that still run most of the data.

This is true, and it is also true that if there is only one supplier it is not true capitalism because there is no competition.

If you insist on your constitutional right to bear arms, I suggest we stick to the kind of guns that could be envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution. Even in their wildest dreams they could not think of the kind of guns that are presently sold on the open market.
Hey look! A new idea!


I know this thread is long, but a quick half-assed scan would've revealed that this point has been thoroughly addressed.

Hey look! A new idea!


I know this thread is long, but a quick half-assed scan would've revealed that this point has been thoroughly addressed.

I like the idea that a group of men who had the vision to successfully break away from a ruling power, develop the governing standards for an entire nation, and successfully run said gov't for years, along w/ inventing quite a few things along the way and developing the country's infrastructure, could not comprehend ANY sort of technological advancement beyond what they had then.

The Articles of Confederation, the USA's first government plan, failed.

The USA Constitution is flawed, and many amendments have had to be added. Basic rights and responsibilities, as well as defining who is a citizen, have had to be wrangled with.

There was a war in the USA fought over basic human and state's rights. Human rights 'won', and still they fight for a full victory. The states' rights have been lessened in favor of Federalism.

The 2nd Amendment reads as if it applies to militias, 'states' armies' of the day.

I favor licensing gun owners / operators in the same manner motor vehicles are controlled. If you want to take all the tests, you should be able to qualify for cannons and machine guns.

This string is rather humerous...I find it funny that, for a country mostly for the 2nd ammendment (and the right to bear weapons easily capable of mass murder), you still feel that cannabis should be illegal.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

This string is rather humerous...I find it funny that, for a country mostly for the 2nd ammendment (and the right to bear weapons easily capable of mass murder), you still feel that cannabis should be illegal.

:confused: :confused: :confused:
Don't be confused. There are many of us who are more or less consistantly pro-freedom.

I favor licensing gun owners / operators in the same manner motor vehicles are controlled. If you want to take all the tests, you should be able to qualify for cannons and machine guns.

Could work. Does that also entail carrying or shooting whatever the hell you want on your own property just as you can now drive anything on your own property without any kind of license? Or carrying a handgun without a license just as you can ride a bike without a license?

The Articles of Confederation, the USA's first government plan, failed. Why do say that? I would say it was merely thrown out.

The USA Constitution is flawed, and many amendments have had to be added. Basic rights and responsibilities, as well as defining who is a citizen, have had to be wrangled with.
I find the Constitution flawed too, but I'd be pretty happy with strict adherence as it stands. What specific things do you think ought be changed? I would abolish the 16th Ammendment, strengthen the 2nd, clarify the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses, remove the federal government from the banking buisness, and restrict emergency powers. And I'd add a criminal provision to punish members of congress for introducing and voting for blatantly unconstitutional bills.

There was a war in the USA fought over basic human and state's rights. Human rights 'won', and still they fight for a full victory. The states' rights have been lessened in favor of Federalism.

You're right that the war was fought against state's rights, but the other side was not human rights. The two are not mutually exlusive. I contend it was more along the lines of greed -vs- states rights. Actually federalism most accurately describes the pre-civil war US. It's defined as A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. The US as a nation-state is a result of the civil war.

I take it that you concede the points about competitiveness and lack of "Made in Finland" tags since you didn't respond to those bits?
I only have so much time to put into these things so I try to concentrate on the main points. Does Finland industry outsource production to those countries? If not, why don't I see "Made in Finland" on any consumer products but reindeer skins?

The R&D for private companies comes from customers. R&D money for universities is a mix between grants and customer funding. Remember the government CAN be a customer, too.

You don't get to spend tons on R&D without a profitable base. The shareholders would never stand for it. On the other hand, companies that don't do R&D fade into oblivion because they don't have any new products.

Now to Mexico and China...They are just tools to be used to make and keep a company profitable. If I build a satellite modem, which we sell in great quantities to Nordic lands by the way, I would rather have it produced offshore because of the low costs. That way, I can spend some more money on R&D for product improvements and new products.

Gotta love comments such as "A very weak currency isn't a problem, at least exports are cheaper!!!12". Also, the idea of getting rid of taxes is great -- and also directly contradicts everything that is being said about guns maybe not being as necessary if law enforcement worked better. I bet laws would be enforced wonderfully if the police and the legislative and judicial systems were completely unfunded.

I don't like taxes, but there is a necessary level for basic government. Problem is we have way too much government. I don't think the private sector can successfully pick up the burden of protecting citizens against force and fraud. A private army wouldn't cut it either. Law enforcement won't ever be able to protect each individual from every harm. Not unless we lock up everyone in cells. There's always some risk attached to liberty; a weapon is a way to reduce the risk and preserve liberty, life, property,etc.

Restricting gun ownership just doesn't make sense to me. Citizens that obey the law are going to continue to obey the law and register or destroy their weapons. By the same logic, they aren't going to run out and start committing crimes with the guns. Without access to firearms, they are prey for the criminals, who by definition don't obey laws. In the U.S., police are not obligated to protect each individual. There was a Supreme Court ruling to that effect a few years back. So a call to 911 isn't going to save you from someone breaking into your house. Now, who protects the individual. Here, it has to be that individual.

For a country that is supposedly "socialist", it's comparatively easy to get a silencer and a machinegun in Finland.

I have several gun aficionado friends in Finland whom I have visited. Each time, we've spent a considerable amount of time firing thousands of rounds of ammunition out of a variety of machineguns, as well as submachineguns with suppressors (silencers).

Yeah, you have to fill out some paperwork, but it's 100 times easier than getting the exact same weapon in the US.

And they don't have a gun violence problem.

The source of the problem in gun violence is not the guns. It's the culture of the people who commit the violence.

The vast majority of gun violence in the US is, according to the US Justice Department, black on black violence due to socioeconomic inequities and drugs.

If we were to make drugs legal here, the majority of that violence would stop, even if we GAVE everyone a gun.

Only if they are unarmed opponents.Soldiers have often managed to kill a great many enemy soldiers (all well armed) with only their issue small arm. Whereas if wars were fought with only improvised weapons, the nation with a higher population of fanatics would win just about always.

Think of it this way... you want to rob a store. You have a handgun. You know that one in five of the people of the store has a handgun. How do you feel? I would imagine you are totally scared shitless at that point.If I really want to rob a store? I'll wait for the store to be as empty as possible, go in with the gun pointed at someone, pick up a woman for a human shield, stay in a position where nobody is behind me, and remain as calm and authoritive as possible. And shoot anyone who draws a gun, of course.

Right, the point is there is no possible separation between "hunting" and "military".I'd rather say separation of civilian hunting rifles from military sniper rifles is nearly always impossible. There are features in a few military sniper rifles which are extremely rare and/or illegal in civilian weapons -- like the fully automatic G3SG/1 and HK33SG/1. Also, it's usually easy to tell whether a rifle was originally intended to be a civilian hunting rifle or a military sniping rifle, even though it's impossible to say what it's actually being used for.

Besides, one of the main things about the military is they should be able to advance rapidly against strong opposition, which is an entirely different set of requirements from what a defensive civilian would encounter. Let me put it to you this way... suppose there is an angry biker gang armed with whatever that wants to kick my ass, and all I have is a Remington 700... I would do fine, I think.If you truly believe that, then you should have no problem with fully automatic weapons being banned. After all, a law-abiding citizen should never have to be on the attack over a distance.

Most criminal attacks don't use rifles, and certainly not semiauto rifles... under 0.1 percent use anything similar. In fact most don't use firearms at all, even though firearms are readily available (actually cheaper on the black market than legal).That's why I said "criminal gun attacks" specifically. Perhaps the reason criminals use handguns more often than rifles is that handguns are simply more useful for just about any use a criminal can find for a handgun? And similarly an M4A1 will be a hell of a lot more useful for him than a Remington Model 700.

I guess my main points are that guns (especially handguns) strongly favor the defense, and that different kinds of guns are not that different in terms of practical capabilities.When it comes to actual killing, handguns are exactly as good for offense as they are for defense. The practical capabilities, at least as far as killing people is concerned, do vary significantly: think of what the Battle of the Somme in WWI had looked like if the German infantry had been armed with G36s and MG3s. For one thing, the whole thing would have been much, much shorter in duration...

"If you truly believe that, then you should have no problem with fully automatic weapons being banned. After all, a law-abiding citizen should never have to be on the attack over a distance."

They have been effectively banned since 1934 in the US. It's extremely difficult to get one, and the licensing requirements are so stringent, that only real collectors end up owning any. The licensed ones have NEVER been used in the commission of a violent crime - since 1934.

You can get one fairly easily in Finland. I have friends there who own MANY just to shoot them for fun. The licensing requirement is far less stringent than the US method. When I want to shoot full-auto, I go to Finland.

I have several gun aficionado friends in Finland whom I have visited. Each time, we've spent a considerable amount of time firing thousands of rounds of ammunition out of a variety of machineguns, as well as submachineguns with suppressors (silencers).

Yeah, you have to fill out some paperwork, but it's 100 times easier than getting the exact same weapon in the US.Urgh... Try reading my messages, OK? I already said this once, I rather not go for three times.Under the Firearms Act, the following firearms are defined as specially dangerous firearms: grenade launchers; mortars; breech-loading cannon and firearms corresponding to these in structure and purpose; missile and rocket-launcher systems; automatic firearms; and firearms disguised as other objects.

The acquisition of specially dangerous firearms and firearm components is generally forbidden. In exceptional cases, however, the Gaming and Weapon Administration of the Ministry of the Interior may grant an acquisition, manufacturing or parallel permit for specially dangerous firearms to be held in a firearm collection, or used in a demonstration, filming or other similar presentation, and, if there are special reasons, for work purposes, should the firearm in question be necessary for the performance of the work.
http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/home.nsf/pages/B40D3A0041C79ED5C2256C450039F83FOnly for demonstrations (like the firearms industry shootouts in the US), or for a collection (in which case it will be made unusable by removing the firing pin or whatever). All fully automatic weapons used in reserve training or similar occasions are owned by the Finnish Defense Forces.

What are your Finnish friends' names and addresses so that I can report them to the proper authorities?

Sound suppressors are not heavily regulated in Finland, that much is true. Everything else about firearms is very heavily regulated. In urban areas, you don't really stand a chance of getting a license for any firearm unless you are a member of a hunting association or a firing range. In any case, carrying a weapon (concealed or unconcealed) in public is illegal -- there is no license that would allow a civilian to do so. Almost all the weapons owned by civilians in Finland are hunting rifles and shotguns, handguns are much rarer.

For a country that is supposedly "socialist" [...]We have welfare state, a functioning public healthcare system, high minimum wages, strict regulations about labor, quite high taxes, etc etc. According to all the socialism-bashing in this thread, we are a socialist country.

Does Finland industry outsource production to those countries? If not, why don't I see "Made in Finland" on any consumer products but reindeer skins?I say again: If seeing lots of "Made in Where Ever" tags is proof of enthusiastic entrepreneurship, high levels of education and innovation, and of sound economic policies by the government, then what does that tell you about China and Mexico?

Now to Mexico and China...They are just tools to be used to make and keep a company profitable. If I build a satellite modem, which we sell in great quantities to Nordic lands by the way, I would rather have it produced offshore because of the low costs. That way, I can spend some more money on R&D for product improvements and new products.Exactly, which is why many Nokia phones are no longer produced in Finland. The R&D and design ("innovation"), still happens here. The same goes for much of the heavy industry, including paper. No much point sending thousands of tonnes of high quality paper overseas to the US when you can just take the Finnish engineering and design over to the US and make the paper there.

The R&D for private companies comes from customers. R&D money for universities is a mix between grants and customer funding. Remember the government CAN be a customer, too.The only difference between governments with high tax rates + active fiscal policy and low tax rates + minimal intervention in economics in that respect is where the R&D funding comes from. The Finnish government spends a lot of money (relatively) on universities and their R&D programs, not to mention funding a lot of research in the private sector.

Here, it has to be that individual.(Bolding mine.) I realize it's a local problem, and I wouldn't know how to solve it. Like I said some 900 posts back, I'm not going to say I've got any answers to the US-specific problems. I'm just here to correct some of the worst breakdowns of logic, and some myths considering guns and gun crime in other countries.

Pardon me if I sound ignorant, but Finland didn't strike me as too socialist when I was there. Cold, yes. Dark, yes. But not too socialist.

The government may be, but the people there seem to have too much of an independent streak to completely do the socialist thing.

Care about your neighbor or community, yes. Become complete socialists, no.

Social welfare does not equate to socialism for me. There are nations with social welfare programs of varying degrees that are not socialist.

Care about your neighbor or community, yes. Become complete socialists, no.

Social welfare does not equate to socialism for me. There are nations with social welfare programs of varying degrees that are not socialist.Ah, okay, you are one of the people who actually define a "socialist country" by it being completely socialist, not just more socialist than your country is. Which is good, all things considered, because the latter version would indeed require most Americans to consider the whole of Europe socialist. Some have been using the word "socialist" in that context in this thread, however.

Well, Erewhon, you'll notice on Internet forums that most people will read "part" of "some" of a post, and make the assumption that you're all the way over to one side of a concept.

Life, countries, and people, are rarely like that.

On another thread, I'm attempting to explain how war should be conducted if you want to avoid an insurgency, and he thinks I think that the Iraq war was a good idea.

It was a very bad idea, and then it was executed poorly - with a guarantee of insurgency.

I can't post half the time because people believe that because I say one thing, I MUST believe another, no matter how disconnected.

Technically speaking, even Nazis have "socialist" ideas. But that doesn't make you a Nazi.

Welfare programs, government medical care, government pensions and retirement, and other things do not a socialist state make.

If I had to put a finger on it, I think that a lot of Americans fear the "nanny" state - where it filters into even the smallest parts of your life, where you are no longer permitted to make even the smallest personal decisions.

I don't think many of these exist yet, except in some extremist's fantasies.

The people who fear this then use "nanny" = "socialist". Not very accurate.

Here in America, we have the "nanny" thing, except it comes from lawsuits, not the government. Buckets have drowning warnings printed on them. Coffee cups say, "Caution: Contents May Be Hot".

I think a lot of time and money could be saved with the message, "You may be stupider than you think" on every consumer item.

Here in America, we have the "nanny" thing, except it comes from lawsuits, not the government. Buckets have drowning warnings printed on them. Coffee cups say, "Caution: Contents May Be Hot".

I think a lot of time and money could be saved with the message, "You may be stupider than you think" on every consumer item.

Grrrr!! America needs some tort reform. If you do something idiotic, you should not be allowed to sue for grillions.
:headbang:

You have Putin pulling the shit he's been doing lately and your worried about Bush? Interesting.

still angry at the russians? interesting.

IMHO, France ceased being riteous with the fall of the 3rd Republic in 1946.
After that, they started to become self indulgent and ceased to be a positive force in the world. Cf: Vietnam, Algeria and DeGaulle pulling France out of full NATO collaboration.

As an example, right *now* Canada has four times the troops in Afghanistan as opposed to France. And they are not only on the UN Security Council, but paint themselves as a world power. Pfah.

what does IMHO mean?

im not at all good at french history, but i wouldnt say they ceased to be a positive force in the world. what is a positive force in your view?

france, along with germany, is the leading country that opposes american decisions. now it seems to me that this is a good thing, because otherwise the world wouldnt be a democracy would it?

what does IMHO mean?

im not at all good at french history, but i wouldnt say they ceased to be a positive force in the world. what is a positive force in your view?

france, along with germany, is the leading country that opposes american decisions. now it seems to me that this is a good thing, because otherwise the world wouldnt be a democracy would it?
IMHO: In My Humble Opinion

France has a reseasonable force of good. But after the revolution all the intelligent ones had been killed off. They have been running on average intelligence since.
So its not their fault.

And this explains why illegal mexican immigrants are all evil and produce the most criminals in our society, ohhhh, you mean they don't. WOOOOOOOOOOOW.

please explain this so i can answer it. thanks in advance.

Actual capitalism require the flow of product to be regulated only by supply and demand. The USSR had a system completely opposite that. How exactly is that in any way, shape, or form capitalism?

i didnt say it was capitalism, i said it was capitalism socialified or something like that. the main point is, the economic system used in russia was not communism. i know tha communism will not work in the current world. it will take fundamental worldwide change for it to work. i cant really answer your stuff about economics cos im defnitely not an economist.

IMHO: In My Humble Opinion

France has a reseasonable force of good. But after the revolution all the intelligent ones had been killed off. They have been running on average intelligence since.
So its not their fault.

thanks, thats a nifty little thing to know.

IMHO in the revolution all the ruling classes were killed off werent they? there fore the french carried out my dream for real.

thanks, thats a nifty little thing to know.

IMHO in the revolution all the ruling classes were killed off werent they? there fore the french carried out my dream for real.

It's easy to get rid of the ruling class: vote.

It's easy to get rid of the ruling class: vote.

sorry, but vote for who?

sorry, but vote for who?

Whoever you want. If there's nobody you like, run for office yourself. If there is someone you like, help get the word out on why that person should be elected. Get involved. Find the party that represents most of what you believe and donate time and/or money.

Sitting back and whining about the way it should be only helps your opposition.

In my opinion, gun laws can be viewed like this.

In a society where the government outlaws guns, or restricts their widespreadness, your average law-abiding citizen will walk around unarmed. If he were to arm himself, he'd be an outlaw.

As a law-abiding citizen, is he likely to want to, say, rob a bank, or kill some innocent people? Probably not, or he wouldn't be a law abiding citizen.

So, in this society, who's going to try and accquire guns? That's right, the people who want to commit crime. The only thing stopping people from wanting to get firearms in this society would be the law, and those who intended to break the law would have no qualms about illegally possessing a gun.

You are now faced with a society in which the only civillians who are armed are those who intend to break the law. Everyone else (with the exception of the police and military) is unarmed.

Since this gives criminals the upper hand, I think it is a hard rule to justify.

Over here in the UK, we're currently reviewing laws regarding the defense of property, since at present the law tends to punish severely those who defend their homes with what is deemed "unreasonable" force. This means that if you kill somebody who's running around in your living room at night and taking your property, you're a worse criminal than they are. In the unlikely event that you own a gun (gun restrictions over here are nothing short of oppressive), and you use it, you are further punished. Surely levels of crime would decrease if would-be burglars knew that they might have to endure a firefight during their neferious crime, rather than stroll in and pillage whilst the residents hid in the upstairs toilet and tried to ring the police.

Obviously though, on this subject, it is important to have some basic discretion. If all weapons regulations were utterly abolished, there would be little to stop a wealthy opposer of the government from staging a military coup with the fleet of state-of-the-art panzers he had lawfully accquired. This certainly doesn't mean a blanket ban on firearms of course, or even of military vehicles, but somewhere a line would have to be drawn in order to prevent descent into anarchy. Maybe regulations should be imposed only to stop someone from kitting out an entire army, but somebody with a few guns won't be able to destroy social order.

If you insist on your constitutional right to bear arms, I suggest we stick to the kind of guns that could be envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution. Even in their wildest dreams they could not think of the kind of guns that are presently sold on the open market.

So, we then apply that yardstick to the other Amendments:
*The Internet, TV and Radio are no longer covered by free speach. (Amendment 1)

*All religions not around in 1789 are not protected by the right to worship.
(Amendment 1)

*No one can complain if their computer equipment is seized by the police, as there is no way that the founders could have imagined PCs. (Amendment 4)

*If you break the law using a method not possible in 1789 (ie: computer fraud), you no longer have the right to a speedy trial of your peers. (Amendment 6)

... and that's just the beginning! :(

If you argue against this, you are arguing against your own interpretation...

The Articles of Confederation, the USA's first government plan, failed.

The USA Constitution is flawed, and many amendments have had to be added. Basic rights and responsibilities, as well as defining who is a citizen, have had to be wrangled with.

There was a war in the USA fought over basic human and state's rights. Human rights 'won', and still they fight for a full victory. The states' rights have been lessened in favor of Federalism.

The 2nd Amendment reads as if it applies to militias, 'states' armies' of the day.

I favor licensing gun owners / operators in the same manner motor vehicles are controlled. If you want to take all the tests, you should be able to qualify for cannons and machine guns.

Darn, that sounds familiar... :)
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7582730&postcount=77

what does IMHO mean?

im not at all good at french history, but i wouldnt say they ceased to be a positive force in the world. what is a positive force in your view?

france, along with germany, is the leading country that opposes american decisions. now it seems to me that this is a good thing, because otherwise the world wouldnt be a democracy would it?

"In My Humble Opinion"

I'll put it back to you:
What has France done since 1946 that has made the world better?
Seriously. Barring the bikini, I can't think of much.

This is *not* a good thing. The US/France have been allies since the Revolution, and close Allies since 1917! France, Germany and the US (and the other G-8 nations) all have very common interests and goals.

That the French think they need to "counterbalance" the US is in itself less than good, but their thinking that the rest of Europe will automatically back them is downright stupid.

We've had a major spat about Iraq, true. But I hope the fence can be mended.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, I'm sure that various European nations now see themselves as successors within the perceived power vacuum. Naturally, the position to take is one of "counterbalancing" the US, which by default is the only nation on Earth that can project power - power enough to invade a nation at will, or destroy that nation with nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, none of the European nations alone possesses a credible ability to project any military power that could seriously, or for more than 30 minutes, resist the military power of the United States. Alone, and not together, none of them possess the economic power. And Europe no longer has any real local resources.

Because they have seats in the UN and votes on the Security Council, they can only oppose the US there, or in NATO meetings.

But that is the extent of their power. They cannot afford to embargo the US, because that is their primary foreign market - and because they have virtually no local resources and need to import a great deal of food, oil, and other raw materials, they need a place to sell their own goods.

That's why they are upset. They didn't see the fall of the Soviet Union coming, any more than the US did.

France, in fantasy land, would like to imagine itself at the head of an EU which would bring back the "glory" that was France.

But it's just not realistic.

If you insist on your constitutional right to bear arms, I suggest we stick to the kind of guns that could be envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution. Even in their wildest dreams they could not think of the kind of guns that are presently sold on the open market.

They didn't limit the technology--which is why it's arms, not firearms, in the constitution. We're supposed to keep pace with the government, so they won't try to subjugate the populace.

Grrrr!! America needs some tort reform. If you do something idiotic, you should not be allowed to sue for grillions.
:headbang:

I second that one!

"In My Humble Opinion"

I'll put it back to you:
What has France done since 1946 that has made the world better?
Seriously. Barring the bikini, I can't think of much.

This is *not* a good thing. The US/France have been allies since the Revolution, and close Allies since 1917! France, Germany and the US (and the other G-8 nations) all have very common interests and goals.

That the French think they need to "counterbalance" the US is in itself less than good, but their thinking that the rest of Europe will automatically back them is downright stupid.

We've had a major spat about Iraq, true. But I hope the fence can be mended.

thanks, someone else said told me too.

what has france done to make the world better? i really cant think of anything, but like i said im poo at french history. i can tell you that they havent done anything to harm the world (excepting nuclear tests), unlike one superpower i can think of...

so would it be a good thing if france and germany supported america in everything its government wanted to do? would that be democracy? the french dont like what the US government is doing and they say so. would you rather that they conformed with americas 'democracy-as-long-as-you-do-what-we-say' idea of democracy? sorry, of course you would.

thanks, someone else said told me too.

what has france done to make the world better? i really cant think of anything, but like i said im poo at french history. i can tell you that they havent done anything to harm the world (excepting nuclear tests), unlike one superpower i can think of...

so would it be a good thing if france and germany supported america in everything its government wanted to do? would that be democracy? the french dont like what the US government is doing and they say so. would you rather that they conformed with americas 'democracy-as-long-as-you-do-what-we-say' idea of democracy? sorry, of course you would.

Ah, but they have, Grasshopper!

* France has done many things that has hindered the world. They fought to keep their colonies, even as the other European nations were letting them go, esp. Vietnam and Algeria.
* They are under-represented in Afghanistan. *Canada* has nearly 4 times their troops there, and the French claim to be a world power!
* The French have a long history of harboring dissidents, including the Ayatollah Khomeni and Yassar Arafat.
* They were major players in the UN oil-for-food snafu.
* Invaded Egypt w/ UK while the 1956 Hungarian Revolution was going on. Had this not happened, Communism may have cracked much earlier.
* Jim Morrison died in France. Nuff said!

Of course not. But by the same token, they should not be trying to come up with "another pole" in International politics.

Be cautious to not cast flames.

Ah, but they have, Grasshopper!

* France has done many things that has hindered the world. They fought to keep their colonies, even as the other European nations were letting them go, esp. Vietnam and Algeria.
* They are under-represented in Afghanistan. *Canada* has nearly 4 times their troops there, and the French claim to be a world power!
* The French have a long history of harboring dissidents, including the Ayatollah Khomeni and Yassar Arafat.
* They were major players in the UN oil-for-food snafu.
* Invaded Egypt w/ UK while the 1956 Hungarian Revolution was going on. Had this not happened, Communism may have cracked much earlier.
* Jim Morrison died in France. Nuff said!

Of course not. But by the same token, they should not be trying to come up with "another pole" in International politics.

Be cautious to not cast flames.


:mad: Dammit!! You left off the most obvious ones!!

* Johnny Depp lives there.
* I think Roman Polanski, the director, lives there since he had a little :fluffle: with a 13 year old girl, and now can't come back. At least not for long. ;)

For a country that is supposedly "socialist", it's comparatively easy to get a silencer and a machinegun in Finland.

Sociaism is an economic disease. It doesn't affect personal liberty, except for the right to keep one's own property. Income re-distribution is the biggest symptom of the disease.

Finland has a very different sort of population than does the USA. It's great that they are safe from crime. We aren't Finland and will never be them. We have to play the hand we have. Those circumstances are certainly not aggravated by law-abiding citzens with guns. They aren't the ones that commit crimes.

..so much so that they now have to pass laws "allowing" people to defend themselves against attacks.



Tories Back Bill Granting Right To Fight Against Burglars

The Conservative Party has thrown its full weight behind a new parliamentary attempt to win more rights for householders to protect themselves against burglars.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/05/nfight05.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/05/ixnewstop.html

Ah, I seem to remember that the French sank a Greenpeace ship and killed some of them. Does that count as the French doing something good? Or does that make them just like the Americans (or worse)?

Well, in any case, I'm sure that Greenpeace has a short memory, and better things to do than hate the French.

Ah, I seem to remember that the French sank a Greenpeace ship and killed some of them. Does that count as the French doing something good? Or does that make them just like the Americans (or worse)?

Well, in any case, I'm sure that Greenpeace has a short memory, and better things to do than hate the French.

You just ruined my whole theory... ;)

Ah, I seem to remember that the French sank a Greenpeace ship and killed some of them. Does that count as the French doing something good? Or does that make them just like the Americans (or worse)?

Well, in any case, I'm sure that Greenpeace has a short memory, and better things to do than hate the French.

IIRC the French have snagged several GP ships. With everything going on in Darfur and the indications that several layers of French Gov't were involved in the UN OFF scandal, I'ld say they're a lot more like us than they would like to admit.

The only difference between governments with high tax rates + active fiscal policy and low tax rates + minimal intervention in economics in that respect is where the R&D funding comes from. The Finnish government spends a lot of money (relatively) on universities and their R&D programs, not to mention funding a lot of research in the private sector.


And here we are back at my original economic argument. My belief is that the government serves the individual, not the other way around. The government that spends tons on R&D in the form of grants is just providing another form of welfare. This time to scientists and engineers instead of under-performing laborers. The flaw in this process is that the government is taking property from someone else in order to support this welfare system. I don't see a real need for the organizations that accept the welfare to produce anything other than a request for next year's funding.

It's like the National Endowment for the Arts in the USA. The government takes my property and gives it to an artist. The artist has no requirements on how he spends the money, except that he produce a "work of art". There's a lot of wiggle room in just what makes art, so he's probably pretty safe with whatever is done. I certainly don't have any input about how my money is spent. I think the ultimate absurdity would be for the artist to fashion an artistic rendering of a request for more funding...

Now, the advantages that a competitive society has over a socialist society are multifold. First, citizens aren't over-burdened by the state siezing property to subsidize unprofitable operations by private industry. That means that we get to keep what we earn, so it is to our advantage to produce wonderful things. These wonderful things please others so much that we can sell a few. We make more of these things, or we make things that are even more wonderful than before.

If the things aren't all that wonderful, they move to the back of the store, then to the stockroom, then to the trash bin. Kind of like clear Pepsi, ick. Maybe the company fails. It's what they deserve. They had the wrong vision. Only government subsidies can keep a bad company in business. Look at Airbus, those are lousy airplanes to fly in, but they can always undercut Boeing because of the subsidies from the EU. I don't want to get that argument started, it was just an example.

Anyhow, the very nature of capitalism and the competition that it breeds is why a society that embraces those principles will always produce new and wonderful things. The society that depends on the state to provide approval and funding of it's commercial world will only be able to make what some bureaucrats or a few university researchers will allow.

By the way, I was trying to introduce a little humor with my post before last when I made the comment about cold fusion. I hope it make you smile, at least. I always like to poke a little fun at those guys when I can.

Last, I see Finland is making more millionnaires in markkas. What is the top tax rate on incomes?

Um... what does this have to do with the original post? Some of these last posts have nothing to do with guns in them XD. Man, if youre gonna talk about the reliability of France or the Finnish government, start a new thread. No offense or anything, but this is when an original thread begins to degenerate...

Um... what does this have to do with the original post? Some of these last posts have nothing to do with guns in them XD. Man, if youre gonna talk about the reliability of France or the Finnish government, start a new thread. No offense or anything, but this is when an original thread begins to degenerate...

Probably not a whole lot. After thirteen hundred posts, it isn't surprising to see a thread run off the tracks. But these forums are about as democratic as the moderators will allow. If the majority of posters don't want to stay on topic, that's the way*it is. Right?

Guns are great. It's the bullets that kill people. Ban the bullets. Bingo, problem solved.

Rats! I forgot that people can use anything, even their bare hands to kill other people.

O.K. So, my choice is to ban murder. Vote "No" on murder.

As for wars, let's all stop fighting them. War, what's it good for? Absolutely nothing.

IIRC the French have snagged several GP ships. With everything going on in Darfur and the indications that several layers of French Gov't were involved in the UN OFF scandal, I'ld say they're a lot more like us than they would like to admit.

Well, to bring this back on track about guns, one wonders why "one" class of persons can be "trusted" with guns, and many others cannot.

The Second Amendment seems to have realized this, probably on the basis of the abuse suffered by colonists during the enforced billeting of British soldiers in people's homes. Soldiers with guns, no matter whose, are going to inflict some abuse on the unarmed civilians.

Take the French for example. There's a nice little video on the Internet of the French troops firing continuously with machineguns into crowds of unarmed civilians in the Ivory Coast (very recent news, that).

Note that the French are not Americans...

Well, to bring this back on track about guns, one wonders why "one" class of persons can be "trusted" with guns, and many others cannot.

The Second Amendment seems to have realized this, probably on the basis of the abuse suffered by colonists during the enforced billeting of British soldiers in people's homes. Soldiers with guns, no matter whose, are going to inflict some abuse on the unarmed civilians.

Take the French for example. There's a nice little video on the Internet of the French troops firing continuously with machineguns into crowds of unarmed civilians in the Ivory Coast (very recent news, that).

Note that the French are not Americans...

But that could NEVER happen "here"!! They'll NEVER try and take away our guns.










*Kent State
** Diane Feinstein/Million Mom March/UN/ Brady Campaign

Oh, I'm not saying it would *never* happen. I'm just saying that it lowers the probability. Lower is better, don't you think? Unless there's no effect at all...

Shooting at troops seems to be a recipe for suicide, nowadays. Just ask the insurgents in Fallujah (oops, my bad. they're dead...)

Oh, I'm not saying it would *never* happen. I'm just saying that it lowers the probability. Lower is better, don't you think? Unless there's no effect at all...

Shooting at troops seems to be a recipe for suicide, nowadays. Just ask the insurgents in Fallujah (oops, my bad. they're dead...)

Of course I agree. Did you read the bottom of my post?

Untrained civilians shooting at trained troops has lower odds of survival true, however, there are a lot more civilians than troops and the US has a fairly high percentage of vets.

Of course I agree. Did you read the bottom of my post?

Untrained civilians shooting at trained troops has lower odds of survival true, however, there are a lot more civilians than troops and the US has a fairly high percentage of vets.

And some of us aren't untrained. :)

I'm convinced that the reason that Arab insurgents (whether Palestinian or Iraqi) have very few people who actually know how to shoot. And those individuals have extremely short lifetimes, and are not easily replaced.

That's why they resort to car bombs and RPGs, because an explosive is bound to kill or injure "someone", whereas improperly aimed bullets rarely find a target.

And some of us aren't untrained. :)

Well in your case that's because you go around breaking into houses and murdering people randomly. That gives you lots of experience.

Making someone accountable for their crimes and not blaming the tool.. How could they?

" Louisville-based federal prosecutors have begun to take more cases to court in a revision of a 4-year-old program aimed at keeping more people convicted of gun-related felonies in prison longer"

http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2004/12/08ky/A1-backfire1208-7728.html