Our US government: Should they fear us or Controle?
- Thread starter Darkfreak
- Start date
Recommended Videos
EMFCRACKSHOT said:
Most people? I'm sorry, did someone take a survey and discover that the majority of people burgled hid? Yes, and the number of those who were young and male? Far lower a proportion I'd suspect, which is why burglars rarely target households where young males reside, because the average young male is biochemically hardwired to fight - hell, the average human is hardwired to fight. Decades of socialisation and pity-ethics mean nothing once it's do or die, and the adrenaline is up.
You seem to be under the assumption that being an armed intruder somehow makes a criminal somehow superior to his victims.
Having been threatened with deadly force, shot at, and fought with people upon several occasions, I'd say I've a fairly good idea of my own capabilities. While I'm no superman, I know my own capabilities, and frankly, I think you guilty of uderestimating your own, and those of humanity in general.
And? Just because someone aquires a gun ilegally doesn't mean we should start handing them out like hot cakes. Efforts need to be made to stop the illegal aquisition of guns.Darkfreak said:
It's like you saying because people can get cocaine we should make cocaine legal and start handing it out everywhere. That logic makes no sense.
And no one with any real power in our gov't is talking about a full ban on all firearms. That would take a constitutional amendment and wouldn't pass a vote anyways. Firearms DO need to be restricted however and like I said it's not like you need an M60 to defend yourself or hunt so why all the fuss about it.
Pretty much this. The government exists to serve us, and if it starts to oppress us, it's not doing its purpose well now is it?the protaginist said:
Ethics has nothing to do with it. In these kinds of situations it is the instinct for survival and self reservation that kicks in. As many psychologists would agree, the most common form this takes is to run and hide.Rolling Thunder said:
You say you've been shot at, threatened with deadly forced and been in fights.
I have been threatened with deadly force, had more than a few fights of my own and whilst not really the same, i've had chavs shoot air rifles at me and throw fireworks at me. Both of which can be just as deadly. You know what i did? i ran like hell. Yes maybe if i had a gun i would have stuck around. Then the playing field would have been fair, but it is never fair.
And if you live in a country where you need a weapon to feel safe then your government and police are not doing their jobs properly and you have my sympathy.
I am realistic about my own abilities. If its just fists i can handle myself and i have been trained to disarm a man armed with a knife (perks of coming from a forces family with friendly commandos' and being in cadets) and i am more than skilled with a gun. I am also semi proficient with a sword or quaterstaff. But that does not mean i wouldn't run and hide like most people. Most who say otherwise are just damned liars . And yes, i do have a low opinion of humanity in general
If
I'm not trying to call you out for not being an expert in American history or anything, but the reason the right to bear arms was assured was because the Anti-Federalist party of the postwar era wanted to ensure that they could have their weapons for exactly that purpose; a reminder for future government of what happened when the British tried to take the Colonists' weapons, resulting in the battles of Lexington and Concord.CloudKiller said:
We do have a say in our government, and as a result that is why we are having problems...
Once the people realize that they can vote themselves more money, it all goes down hill. People elect the stupid politicians because they are the fools who claim they will lower taxes in a time where tax money is needed most, while the ones who may actually try to solve a problem never get elected because they make the hard decisions and say that taxes need to stay where they are for a time.
And a government need only fear the people if it is a democracy.
Once the people realize that they can vote themselves more money, it all goes down hill. People elect the stupid politicians because they are the fools who claim they will lower taxes in a time where tax money is needed most, while the ones who may actually try to solve a problem never get elected because they make the hard decisions and say that taxes need to stay where they are for a time.
And a government need only fear the people if it is a democracy.
This topic (gun regulation) comes up regularly. I remember it was a similar subject thread that made me join, and it turned into a 70+ page monster (if not 120+). I (British, anti-gun) and a fellow member (American, pro-gun) managed to hold a very educated debate on the pros/cons of an armed public for self-defence (with a lot of government and international statistics as well as documented research to back up our arguments).
What we managed to eventually establish as common ground was that a ban on guns/extreme regulation would be ideal (as in be better for the populace) BUT purely hypothetically because there are too many guns in circulation (and like any would be handed in if a ban was enforced) in the US and the borders are too unguarded for any such regulation to take hold now. Essentially, the anti-gun side was right except for the fact the conditions in America make any tight regulation/ban utterly futile and un-enforceable perhaps to the extent of actually leaving the public at risk of violent crime. Ergo both viewpoints (pro- and anti-gun) were right, it's just a matter of implementation and cultural and social-developmental difference. If this doesn't make sense, sorry, I'm having trouble with the wording (bad head-cold is fugging my thoughts).
As such I don't really want to be drawn into such a debate, but (and linking back to the OT in one smooth move) here's how some of the pro-gun arguments look from a non-American perspective, from a (relatively) safe country with tight firearms regulations:
[warning, EXTREME hyperbole and sarcasm, not intended seriously or as an attack. Please don't kill me
]
Y'see it was back in the winter of '05, when the army rolled into my street, dragging us all into gulags under the evil Labour opressors. If only we'd been able to fight the army off with our (pathetic compared to automatic machine guns and tanks) handguns! Then we might actually be able to vote for a change of...oh, wait - yeah. We can vote and are still a gulag-free democracy.
[being more serious again now]
The thing is that in the rest of the civilised world the majority of countries have tight gun regulations (mostly flat-out bans) but haven't been turned into totalitarian dictatorships by the governments. There are rarely shootings in these countries, whenever they do they make headline national news. After the tight regulations of firearms in Britain imposed in the...late 80s, I believe, there hasn't been a single school shooting (there were 2 which are the reason for such strict controls - one was on military-grade hardware like assault rifles and automatic shotguns, the other was on handguns).
It is something of a marvel to the rest of the world how fearful you Americans are that your government is going to overthrow everything that has ever existed in the centuries your country has been in existence, and that you feel you actually pose some sort of threat by carrying a handgun. I often see the argument "The Gov't hasn't opressed us yet...BUT THEY COULD! We need to be ready!" - or less hyperbolic words to that effect. No other democratic nation has this (to us) totally strange, alien worry. It just doesn't seem practical that a Gov't or leader could have a massive coup against all legislative, enforcement and military controls - the only way such a coup would be possible is with the help of the army, in which case 1) we hope the generals side with the public if it ever gets that far and 2) your permit to carry a handgun (and the weapon, obviously) is ineffective against such force so you're still screwed anyway.
Therefore I take the viewpoint that a government shouldn't fear it's citizens - and neither should it control them (a small amount of socilisation is necessary for large populations of humans to co-exist and interact successfully and peacefully). It should have a respect for the voters (something sadly lacking in UK politics at the moment) and carry out their will to the best they can without jeopardising national security or the welfare of the nation/economy at-large (see, there was something on-topic in this post). And, in order to have a stable economy and a reason for foreign coutries to invest, we need people to be free enough to come up with good ideas, inventions and be free to choose their own path/career in life (ergo government control is bad).
Like I said, a ban on firearms or incredibly strict controls on firearms is impossible to enforce in America however much of a good idea it may be (for reasons already mentioned) and thus your "right to bear arms" is going to remain constitutional and permitted; but please don't go around spouting that only criminals would have firearms and would take over the country - as evidence from the rest of the developed world disagrees.
PS: Again, my apoligies for the incredibly hyperbolic section in response to the quote. That (quote) is just a statement that winds me up somewhat, and I decided that being Over-the-top and slightly humerous would get the reason why such a viewpoint is flawed across. I do not mean it in an inflammatory manner.
What we managed to eventually establish as common ground was that a ban on guns/extreme regulation would be ideal (as in be better for the populace) BUT purely hypothetically because there are too many guns in circulation (and like any would be handed in if a ban was enforced) in the US and the borders are too unguarded for any such regulation to take hold now. Essentially, the anti-gun side was right except for the fact the conditions in America make any tight regulation/ban utterly futile and un-enforceable perhaps to the extent of actually leaving the public at risk of violent crime. Ergo both viewpoints (pro- and anti-gun) were right, it's just a matter of implementation and cultural and social-developmental difference. If this doesn't make sense, sorry, I'm having trouble with the wording (bad head-cold is fugging my thoughts).
As such I don't really want to be drawn into such a debate, but (and linking back to the OT in one smooth move) here's how some of the pro-gun arguments look from a non-American perspective, from a (relatively) safe country with tight firearms regulations:
[warning, EXTREME hyperbole and sarcasm, not intended seriously or as an attack. Please don't kill me
]Holy shit, I didn't realise that I voted for my choice of 3 Drug Cartels! No wonder politicians are getting younger, they must be the sons of the drug barons who have gunned-down their fathers to take over the family business! We, the public, are picked-on and abused at will by these criminal overlords and without guns we have no way of fighting back - no police, nothing!Arhy said:
Y'see it was back in the winter of '05, when the army rolled into my street, dragging us all into gulags under the evil Labour opressors. If only we'd been able to fight the army off with our (pathetic compared to automatic machine guns and tanks) handguns! Then we might actually be able to vote for a change of...oh, wait - yeah. We can vote and are still a gulag-free democracy.
[being more serious again now]
The thing is that in the rest of the civilised world the majority of countries have tight gun regulations (mostly flat-out bans) but haven't been turned into totalitarian dictatorships by the governments. There are rarely shootings in these countries, whenever they do they make headline national news. After the tight regulations of firearms in Britain imposed in the...late 80s, I believe, there hasn't been a single school shooting (there were 2 which are the reason for such strict controls - one was on military-grade hardware like assault rifles and automatic shotguns, the other was on handguns).
It is something of a marvel to the rest of the world how fearful you Americans are that your government is going to overthrow everything that has ever existed in the centuries your country has been in existence, and that you feel you actually pose some sort of threat by carrying a handgun. I often see the argument "The Gov't hasn't opressed us yet...BUT THEY COULD! We need to be ready!" - or less hyperbolic words to that effect. No other democratic nation has this (to us) totally strange, alien worry. It just doesn't seem practical that a Gov't or leader could have a massive coup against all legislative, enforcement and military controls - the only way such a coup would be possible is with the help of the army, in which case 1) we hope the generals side with the public if it ever gets that far and 2) your permit to carry a handgun (and the weapon, obviously) is ineffective against such force so you're still screwed anyway.
Therefore I take the viewpoint that a government shouldn't fear it's citizens - and neither should it control them (a small amount of socilisation is necessary for large populations of humans to co-exist and interact successfully and peacefully). It should have a respect for the voters (something sadly lacking in UK politics at the moment) and carry out their will to the best they can without jeopardising national security or the welfare of the nation/economy at-large (see, there was something on-topic in this post). And, in order to have a stable economy and a reason for foreign coutries to invest, we need people to be free enough to come up with good ideas, inventions and be free to choose their own path/career in life (ergo government control is bad).
Like I said, a ban on firearms or incredibly strict controls on firearms is impossible to enforce in America however much of a good idea it may be (for reasons already mentioned) and thus your "right to bear arms" is going to remain constitutional and permitted; but please don't go around spouting that only criminals would have firearms and would take over the country - as evidence from the rest of the developed world disagrees.
PS: Again, my apoligies for the incredibly hyperbolic section in response to the quote. That (quote) is just a statement that winds me up somewhat, and I decided that being Over-the-top and slightly humerous would get the reason why such a viewpoint is flawed across. I do not mean it in an inflammatory manner.
Until one day the government says "We're not having elections anymore." Then you're helpless.NoMoreSanity said:
Farfetched as it may be, the only way to prevent that from happening is to have an armed populace. Not to mention the fact that more widely available guns leads to a decrease in crime because criminals don't like to prey upon armed targets. I could go on and on, but I'd rather not.
The movie is alright but the movie is way too toned down in its themes for me to call it good. Books are better.Raregolddragon said:
My stance on gun ownership has always been this:
Completely restricting ownership won't help because those who need guns to commit crimes will get weapons anyway; a law won't stop them. Thus, the only people who have weapons would be the criminals. Not that the general populace needs high powered assault weapons (though they are admittedly very cool), just something to defend themselves with. A crook will think twice about robbing some place if there's the chance the owners have their own guns.
Completely restricting ownership won't help because those who need guns to commit crimes will get weapons anyway; a law won't stop them. Thus, the only people who have weapons would be the criminals. Not that the general populace needs high powered assault weapons (though they are admittedly very cool), just something to defend themselves with. A crook will think twice about robbing some place if there's the chance the owners have their own guns.
I love democracy. People need to have a say in the way their country is run.Darkfreak said:
Communism, in its TRUE form, is really a perfect world government. People all work for the same wages, getting the same amount of everything so that nobody went hungry and everybody has a roof to sleep under. Unfortunately because EVERYONE is greedy to some degree, Communism would never work. People would ask why a doctor, who went to medical school for all those years, get paid the same wage and receives the same benefits a janitor receives. And then there is the problem with the people who just want to sit around and do nothing and get all the benefits that doctor is getting.
Democracy also has the same problems. Although not everyone would get the same amount of money and benefits, people realize that they can vote themselves into money. So the government would always end up catering to people, dishing out huge amounts of money simply because the people voted it for themselves. And then when the governments money dries up from giving everyone free money, and not collecting any money through taxes because people voted themselves out of those as well, no one would be getting any money.