Our US government: Should they fear us or Controle?

[Cortheya]

They have every right to place retrictions on you as they are your leagally democratically elected geovernment. You trust them to do whats in the best interest of the country but have the opportunity to remove them in an election. The whole concept of the public needing weaponry to keep the government afraid of them is outdated in this modern, more civilised world. At least in places like the USA and GB.
The government should not fear the people, but the people should not fear the government. They should trust each other to work for the betterment of all.
The government excersises some level control on almost everything you do. It has to because people cannot control themselves in a manner that is productive for the majority.

They should NOT have the power to restrict us. Just because people voted for them they can't reign over us completely.

They don't reign over you completely. In the USA you have a chance to change the government every four years. If the government does something you don't like you vote them out and if the majority disagree with you and keep them in power, you are probably wrong.
All laws are a form of restriction. Everything the government does restricts pepole in some way. You know this when you vote for a candidate. You are giving them their power by voting, this is also how you take it away.

I see...So since people give them power they can do with it whatever they wish?

 

[72Chevy]

Although i'm not American, I doubt that the right to bear arms was conceived for that purpose. If you want to keep a goverment in check then all the American people have to do is vote for the right people who'll run the goverment the right way.

Snip

Actually it is what the second amendment was written for, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

See the whole free state part, that's why we have the right to firearms, to keep us free from an oppressive government.

They have every right to place retrictions on you as they are your leagally democratically elected geovernment. You trust them to do whats in the best interest of the country but have the opportunity to remove them in an election. The whole concept of the public needing weaponry to keep the government afraid of them is outdated in this modern, more civilised world. At least in places like the USA and GB.
The government should not fear the people, but the people should not fear the government. They should trust each other to work for the betterment of all.
The government excersises some level control on almost everything you do. It has to because people cannot control themselves in a manner that is productive for the majority.

They should NOT have the power to restrict us. Just because people voted for them they can't reign over us completely.

They don't reign over you completely. In the USA you have a chance to change the government every four years. If the government does something you don't like you vote them out and if the majority disagree with you and keep them in power, you are probably wrong.
All laws are a form of restriction. Everything the government does restricts pepole in some way. You know this when you vote for a candidate. You are giving them their power by voting, this is also how you take it away.

I see...So since people give them power they can do with it whatever they wish?

What if said elected officials decide to take the right to vote away? Then how do we vote them out? Bullets.

 

[Darkfreak]

The government is designed to control the people. You say they have no right to ban weapons. They have every freaking right. Even if they wished to get rid of the constitution then that would be their right. What could you do to stop them? Take gun control. Americans in general have proven they can not be trusted with firearms. So they should remove it. There have already been 27 amendments because the constitution was thought unconstitutional. So why the hell not? Unless of course you would like to see all 27 reversed and go by the original.

Y the heck not!

 

[NotMePleaseIgnore]

No. I didn't say that. I said I agree with you, but even if guns were banned people would still find a way to get them. It wouldn't matter.

How though, if sale of guns were illegal everywhere. If you actually keep a tight border and make sure no one ships guns in. How would anyone get them ? I'm sure you know, some really big mafia guys might. But we're talking about the average street gangster who got high and ran wild with a gun. Is he going to be able to get a gun as easily? No

Maybe not as easily but they'll still be there, just gone up in price.

Think about many tonnes of drugs of how many illegal immigrants get in without the government knowing every day?

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

I see...So since people give them power they can do with it whatever they wish?

That is why you vote for someone you trust to be responsible with that power and place safeguards and a system of checks an balances on that power. This is done in the USA in the form of the Constitution.
You seem under some misguided notion that the government is all powerfull. This is not the case.

 

[DND Judgement]

isn't the right to bear arms to defend against foreign invaders...?

 

[Darkfreak]

Although i'm not American, I doubt that the right to bear arms was conceived for that purpose. If you want to keep a goverment in check then all the American people have to do is vote for the right people who'll run the goverment the right way.

Snip

Actually it is what the second amendment was written for, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

See the whole free state part, that's why we have the right to firearms, to keep us free from an oppressive government.

They have every right to place retrictions on you as they are your leagally democratically elected geovernment. You trust them to do whats in the best interest of the country but have the opportunity to remove them in an election. The whole concept of the public needing weaponry to keep the government afraid of them is outdated in this modern, more civilised world. At least in places like the USA and GB.
The government should not fear the people, but the people should not fear the government. They should trust each other to work for the betterment of all.
The government excersises some level control on almost everything you do. It has to because people cannot control themselves in a manner that is productive for the majority.

They should NOT have the power to restrict us. Just because people voted for them they can't reign over us completely.

They don't reign over you completely. In the USA you have a chance to change the government every four years. If the government does something you don't like you vote them out and if the majority disagree with you and keep them in power, you are probably wrong.
All laws are a form of restriction. Everything the government does restricts pepole in some way. You know this when you vote for a candidate. You are giving them their power by voting, this is also how you take it away.

I see...So since people give them power they can do with it whatever they wish?

What if said elected officials decide to take the right to vote away? Then how do we vote them out? Bullets.

Right on!

 

[Rolling Thunder]

In fairness, the state should not pass laws that impair a private citizen from protecting himself. In essence, you shouldn't prohibit weapons if there is a need for private citizens to carry them.

The only reason private citizens need for guns is hunting and competition shooting. Not for making the government fear them and certainly not for taking the law into their own hands.

I would beg to differ. If one is in a situation whereby the police cannot be relied upon to protect one from armed intruders, or there is a good chance that armed intruders will attempt to break into my house, kill me and steal my things, then I say that the state has no business disarming it's citizens until it can do a better job itself.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Govern

1. To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in.
2. To control the speed or magnitude of; regulate: a valve that governs fuel intake.
3. To control the actions or behavior of: Govern yourselves like civilized people.
4. To keep under control; restrain: a student who could not govern his impulses.
5. To exercise a deciding or determining influence on: Chance usually governs the outcome of the game.
6. Grammar To require (a specific morphological form) of accompanying words.

Control is the whole point of what a government is and in a democracy the control is subject to the will of the masses sure there are imbalances but life isn't perfect.
Democracy is already a flawed idea anyway since you're giving people the power to influence a situation without knowing that they have enought knowledge to make an intelligent decision and then the elected official might not be as capable or willing to do as they claim.
Sounds bad but its worked fine enough so far.

 

[NotMePleaseIgnore]

Democracy is already a flawed idea anyway since you're giving people the power to influence a situation without knowing that they have enought knowledge to make an intelligent decision and then the elected official might not be as capable or willing to do as they claim.
Sounds bad but its worked fine enough so far.

Yeah I always thought democracy was like someone saying

"Do you want us to electrocute everyone in your country or strangle them? You're the one that's choosing what you want"

 

[sneakypenguin]

Hehe all government would have to do is hold up the stings controlling SS Medicare and education and the public will fall right in line.
We fear our government. Well I hate it more than fear it but yeah they control us if only through our own apathy.

 

[Cortheya]

I see...So since people give them power they can do with it whatever they wish?

That is why you vote for someone you trust to be responsible with that power and place safeguards and a system of checks an balances on that power. This is done in the USA in the form of the Constitution.
You seem under some misguided notion that the government is all powerfull. This is not the case.

That is not what I think....I think that it should not be and should be prevented from being.

 

[loremazd]

I love how this misinformed kid just says "Down with the government!" and everyone hops on just because. There's no examples of increased restrictions or that people can't vote for things. Because of his title, folks are supporting him, but his information is just all kinds of whacky. "My dad said this one town in Texas everyone owns a gun and they have no crime." Well I live in san antonio, and I assume he's talking about the crazy cult in Waco that stormed an armory and hid out in the mountains. They were all captured and arrested, and everyone thinks Texas is some crazy gun state. Sure there's lots more hunters, but your average city in Texas has about as many gun owners as any other city.

Now, there's certainly very small towns all over texas with no crime, but in a town of one hundred, there's not many crime to commit. Also, Sarah Palin has personally hunted. She's not going to be banning guns.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

People should not be afraid of the government. The government should be afraid of the people.

Seriously, go watch V for Vendetta.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

In fairness, the state should not pass laws that impair a private citizen from protecting himself. In essence, you shouldn't prohibit weapons if there is a need for private citizens to carry them.

The only reason private citizens need for guns is hunting and competition shooting. Not for making the government fear them and certainly not for taking the law into their own hands.

I would beg to differ. If one is in a situation whereby the police cannot be relied upon to protect one from armed intruders, or there is a good chance that armed intruders will attempt to break into my house, kill me and steal my things, then I say that the state has no business disarming it's citizens until it can do a better job itself.

Then i would call you a fool for attempting to confront an armed intruder without any form of training. If you restrict gun ownership with severe background checks and conditions that must be met in order to own a gun then such instances would be much less common.
If you live in a place where everyone is allowed guns, then you would need guns to protect yourself from the people as is the case in America.
The police and armed forces cannot do a better job until the government is willing to give them the power necessary to deal with the threat.

 

[clicketycrack]

And yes, they should fear us, because we can vote them out of power.

I'm sure Joseph Stalin was in a real tissy when election day roled around.

Anyway, NO SHIT OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD FEAR US, but they don't because the U.S. military has got some scary shit. Sure, someone could shoot a cop with a hunting rifle and that is bad, and then that creates a great argument for the pro-gun control people. Fortunately, I like those people am in a safe neighborhood where I really wouldn't need a gun. BUT if I ever woke up one morning and realised that my neighbors just got hit by a driveby, I happen to know a guy who knows a guy who is related to a guy thats in "the biz" and I would totally get myself an overcompensatory gun.

and by the way, HELL YEAH! AMERICA *shoots a random arabish guy with an AMERICAN gun and takes a swig of AMERICAN beer and then eats an AMERICAN hot dog covered in APPLE PIE*

 

[NotMePleaseIgnore]

Anyway, NO SHIT OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD FEAR US, but they don't because the U.S. military has got some scary shit.

What they gonna do? Bomb their own country?

 

[Rolling Thunder]

In fairness, the state should not pass laws that impair a private citizen from protecting himself. In essence, you shouldn't prohibit weapons if there is a need for private citizens to carry them.

The only reason private citizens need for guns is hunting and competition shooting. Not for making the government fear them and certainly not for taking the law into their own hands.

I would beg to differ. If one is in a situation whereby the police cannot be relied upon to protect one from armed intruders, or there is a good chance that armed intruders will attempt to break into my house, kill me and steal my things, then I say that the state has no business disarming it's citizens until it can do a better job itself.

Then i would call you a fool for attempting to confront an armed intruder without any form of training. If you restrict gun ownership with severe background checks and conditions that must be met in order to own a gun then such instances would be much less common.
If you live in a place where everyone is allowed guns, then you would need guns to protect yourself from the people as is the case in America.
The police and armed forces cannot do a better job until the government is willing to give them the power necessary to deal with the threat.

Balls, EMF. Any man or woman can kill an armed intruder, presuming both have a gun. All it takes is a weapon and the will to use it. Yes, you have no training, but neither has he, and it's better than lying in your bed whimpering like a broke-backed dog. Police training dosen't magically take normal people, and turn them into crime-fighting supervillains. It takes normal people and teaches them to restrain their strength, rather than reacting like most of us would and kicking the attacker in the face until it stopped moving.


In South Africa, I do not need guns to protect myself from my neighbours, I need them to protect me from the sociopath climbing through the window until the armed response teams turn up. Honest to god, have you ever lived in a genuinely dangerous place? No? Then pray realise you know very little on the subject.