US Politics

[scouse mac]

What the hell is up with it these days?


With the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, her aide and a federal judge along with other members of the public (including a 9 year old girl), there seems to be a huge amount of anger and vitriole flying about. Almost as if its violence on a political scale.

Whats the score with these uber conservative loonies Ive been hearing about, The Tea Party?

Also, is anyone else getting a serious The Dead Zone vibe about Sarah Palin?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2011/01/febrile_politics_of_giffords_s.html

[TheWickerFan]

Aren't the teabaggers loads of fun?

With the tea party gaining popularity and the Republicans gaining control of Congress once again, I think it's time to consider moving to Canada.:mad:

[newb]

not a big fan of politics, but that shooter was just a fucking nut-job...he was gonna blow sooner or later.

As far as Sarah Palin....meh....she's already turning into a caricature....don't think she'll have a serious run at office.

but who knows

society is turning into shit

I blame Reality TV

I really have to get back working on my flux capacitor....just hope I can get the mini-van up to 88

[bwind22]

To make themselves look better and win elections, politicians demonize their opposition to the point that every so often, some unstable fucktard takes things too literally, snaps and takes a shot at one of them. Both parties do it. It's not exclusive to Republicans, they're just the ones with the guns. There's plenty of liberal fucktards too.

Aside from pushing people on the edge over the brink, it creates a pretty hostile climate when elected officials are supposed to be working together to make the country better. How can someone sit down and compromise to solve problems with a person they were comparing to Hitler a few weeks earlier during the elections without pissing off the people who bought in to their bullshit and got them elected in the first place?

Our whole political system is completely fucked.

[Sistinas666]

Our whole political system is completely fucked.




Well put.

I gave up on "Rocking The Vote" or giving a fuck years ago. Our whole system is rigged. I'm not exactly sure who but its not the people who choose the politicians anymore. Sometimes I think "big oil" calls the shots and the conspiracy theorist in me thinks it may be something bigger.

[TheWickerFan]

that shooter was just a fucking nut-job...he was gonna blow sooner or later.


Agreed. As much as I dislike Sarah Palin, I don't think she or the conservatives can be blamed for this incident. The shooter could have just as easily targeted someone else.

[TheWickerFan]

I gave up on "Rocking The Vote" or giving a fuck years ago..

That's exactly what "they" want you to do.;)

[novakru]

Honestly scouse-is it really that big of a surprise?
Can anything that happens here be shocking at this point?
We are AMERICANS after all...

[bwind22]

Well put.

I gave up on "Rocking The Vote" or giving a fuck years ago. Our whole system is rigged. I'm not exactly sure who but its not the people who choose the politicians anymore. Sometimes I think "big oil" calls the shots and the conspiracy theorist in me thinks it may be something bigger.

The lobbyists have WAY too much influence in Washington, but I suspect Goldman Sachs is actually running the country.

There's no way to fix our fucked system without kicking everyone out of office and starting over from scratch. (Which will never happen.)

There are 3 fundamental problems I see.

1 is career politicians. Politicians are supposed to be people like you or me, sent to Washington for a few years to represent our neighbors' interests. Our founding fathers were farmers, lawyers, doctors, etc... Not politicians. Now we've got people that have been there for 40 years. They are so out of touch with reality that they can't possibly have a clue what's in the best interest of the "real" people. A lot of them have the best intentions the first time they get elected. Then they get to Washington and realize they were being naive to think they could change anything on their own and join the club (for lack of a better term.)

The 2nd fundamental problem is that we're stuck with a 2 party system. While Republicans & Democrats don't agree on much, they certainly agree that it's in their mutual best interest to keep things limited to 2 parties. And then we're screwed. We're constantly given the choice between 2 candidates that both suck for different reasons. I think we should have a choice between 5-10 candidates in every major election. They should all get equal tv time, press coverage and debate time... In short, they should all have a legit shot to win. But they don't, and that's why a vote for Nader or Perot is just considered a wasted vote. (The only way those guys got in there at all was because they put up tons of their own cash to do so. They bought their ways into the elections, but even then couldn't buy themselves a legit chance at winning it.)

The 3rd is the Lobbyists. They give so much money to these people to get them elected that it's only natural to assume the politician will return some favors once they get in office (and they do.) How can you vote for a bill that's gonna regulate the banks or oil industry when they provided 80% of your campaign funds and got you elected in the first place?


Yes, I'm jaded. I fucking hate our corrupt system. It's beyond repair.

[novakru]

Yes, I'm jaded. I fucking hate our corrupt system. It's beyond repair.


Amen brother:cool:

[TheWickerFan]

Apathy: the #1 reason why the U.S.A. is in the state it's in.

[novakru]

Apathy: the #1 reason why the U.S.A. is in the state it's in.

Yes, exactly, that is totally the whole and only fucking reason...yeeper

[FreddyMyers]

Being a bartender im reluctant to speak on Religion or Politics.......but Bwind put it better than i think ive ever heard.

Couldnt agree more and have always been very curious as to what percent of the country actually feels the same way. Damn the man.....save the empire!!!!

[scouse mac]

The thing that has surprised me is the level genuine anger and how vicious the politicking has gotten.

It probably takes something as extreme as this shooting to make people take a step back and try to reign back the insanity a little.

As for fixing the 'system', for as long as money talks their is no way things will change. What they need is to ban completely all outside funding for political campaigns and make them regulated and funded by the state (which of course means jon q taxpayer coughing up for the tab).

[TheWickerFan]

Don't say 'regulated'!! The Tea Party might hear you!:rolleyes:

[Despare]

As for fixing the 'system', for as long as money talks their is no way things will change. What they need is to ban completely all outside funding for political campaigns and make them regulated and funded by the state (which of course means jon q taxpayer coughing up for the tab).

Why should we pay for people to campaign? It all comes down to power, and the people who shouldn't have power are the ones that want it the most. Things will change, they always do, maybe for a while we'll get a big behemoth of a government and the dems will be monitoring our lovely HDC for us. Wouldn't that be nice Wicker?

[bwind22]

Republicans and Democrats, in general, are very black and white in their views. Unfortunately, the majority of real people live in the gray area in between.

I am pro-guns, anti-censorship, anti-tax, pro-responsible government spending, pro-socialized healthcare, pro-gay marriage, pro-death penalty, pro-legalized prostitution, pro-decriminalized marijuana laws, anti-abortion (in most cases), etc... Half of those are republican platforms, the other half democratic. Since we're stuck with just 2 black and white parties, I will probably never see a candidate that I agree with on everything and I'm sure I'm not the only one. It's highly discouraging.

[TheWickerFan]

Why should we pay for people to campaign? It all comes down to power, and the people who shouldn't have power are the ones that want it the most. Things will change, they always do, maybe for a while we'll get a big behemoth of a government and the dems will be monitoring our lovely HDC for us. Wouldn't that be nice Wicker?

Oh yes, it's the Democrats that have a history of monitoring what people say about their government.:rolleyes: With the notable exception of Wikileaks, I think the Republicans have been, by far, the biggest culprits in trying to control what we can say about the President and other high ranking politicians (I remember vividly, during the early post 9/11 days, people getting visits from the feds because someone overheard them say something negative about the way George W. Bush was handling the situation).

[TheWickerFan]

Getting back to our looney, I see a resemblance:http://ll-media.tmz.com/2011/01/10/0110-jared-lee-loughner-bn-credit.jpg

http://img.geocaching.com/cache/336ab0a0-db36-4220-9e58-6e347b60ddc0.jpg

[Despare]

Oh yes, it's the Democrats that have a history of monitoring what people say about their government.:rolleyes: With the notable exception of Wikileaks, I think the Republicans have been, by far, the biggest culprits in trying to control what we can say about the President and other high ranking politicians (I remember vividly, during the early post 9/11 days, people getting visits from the feds because someone overheard them say something negative about the way George W. Bush was handling the situation).

The survey was conducted shortly after the FCC decided on a party line vote to impose so-called “net neutrality” regulations on the Internet world. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly oppose FCC regulation of the Internet, while Democrats are more evenly divided. Those who use the Internet most are most opposed to FCC regulations.
By a 52% to 27% margin, voters believe that more free market competition is better than more regulation for protecting Internet users. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly share this view, but a plurality of Democrats (46%) think more regulation is the better approach.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters believe that the FCC would use its regulatory authority to promote a political agenda. Half that number (28%) disagree and believe the commission would regulate in an unbiased manner. The partisan divide is the same on this question as the others. A plurality of Democrats sees an unbiased regulatory approach, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters fear a political agenda.



Also, does anybody else think it's funny that a UFC joked about wanting to fight Obama and had a visit from the secret service?

Anyway, if you're honest with yourself Wicker, you'll agree that be you Dem or Rep the people representing you have fallen away from the ideals of the party you're a part of.

[bwind22]

you'll agree that be you Dem or Rep the people representing you have fallen away from the ideals of the party you're a part of.


Amen to that.

[TheWickerFan]

The survey was conducted shortly after the FCC decided on a party line vote to impose so-called “net neutrality” regulations on the Internet world. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly oppose FCC regulation of the Internet, while Democrats are more evenly divided. Those who use the Internet most are most opposed to FCC regulations.
By a 52% to 27% margin, voters believe that more free market competition is better than more regulation for protecting Internet users. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly share this view, but a plurality of Democrats (46%) think more regulation is the better approach.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters believe that the FCC would use its regulatory authority to promote a political agenda. Half that number (28%) disagree and believe the commission would regulate in an unbiased manner. The partisan divide is the same on this question as the others. A plurality of Democrats sees an unbiased regulatory approach, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters fear a political agenda.



Also, does anybody else think it's funny that a UFC joked about wanting to fight Obama and had a visit from the secret service?

Anyway, if you're honest with yourself Wicker, you'll agree that be you Dem or Rep the people representing you have fallen away from the ideals of the party you're a part of.

I am honest with myself; I wasn't one of the people who thought the country was going to be fixed overnight once Barack Obama took office, but I shudder to think what would have happened if John McCain had won. And when it comes to FCC regulations, it's that extremely vocal minority (Tea Party, religious fanatics etc.) who always get their way; what I would accuse both parties of is completely caving to these little groups and not taking the repercussions this will cause into account.


I think the bartender was right; we should probably avoid the subjects of politics and religion.

[Despare]

I am honest with myself; I wasn't one of the people who thought the country was going to be fixed overnight once Barack Obama took office, but I shudder to think what would have happened if John McCain had won. And when it comes to FCC regulations, it's that extremely vocal minority (Tea Party, religious fanatics etc.) who always get their way; what I would accuse both parties of is completely caving to these little groups and not taking the repercussions this will cause into account.


I think the bartender was right; we should probably avoid the subjects of politics and religion.

The democrats want internet regulation the most though... that's what I was showing you.

I don't think we should avoid conversations... just fights.

[TheWickerFan]

The democrats want internet regulation the most though... that's what I was showing you.

I don't think we should avoid conversations... just fights.

I thought we were initially talking about censorship, not net neutrality. I'm not sure how much net neutrality would effect HDC.

I don't mind debating with you.:)

[Despare]

I thought we were initially talking about censorship, not net neutrality. I'm not sure how much net neutrality would effect HDC.

I don't mind debating with you.:)

NN regulation would lead to censorship, even before that it would lead to providers having control of websites. Say a Comcast user is searching for a horror site, what would prevent Comcast from directing traffic to Fear.net or some channel they're affiliated with? Anyway, while Republicans are blamed for censorship all the time Democrats consistently push for governmental control over things like movies, videogames, and music (I can even pull former second lady Tipper into that one).

[Karl Kopfrkingl]

Despare - I think you have your argument backwards. Net neutrality would prevent service providers from blocking sites. Companies like Comcast would like to be able to force consumers to use apps from companies who pay them the most rather than ones from companies that don't - net neutrality regulations would mean they couldn't block/censor. Just because it is a government regulation doesn't necessarily mean more government control. I'm not advocating NN. There is a strong argument and precedent that if companies like Google want to pay more to have their content delivered faster they should be allowed to do so. Personally I am suspicious of big business and suspect that if tiered services come into play it will end up costing the end consumer (me) more. But then again, if I want to watch streaming video all day long (I do) perhaps I should pay more than my grandmother who only checks her email and the weather channel.

[Despare]

Despare - I think you have your argument backwards. Net neutrality would prevent service providers from blocking sites. Companies like Comcast would like to be able to force consumers to use apps from companies who pay them the most rather than ones from companies that don't - net neutrality regulations would mean they couldn't block/censor. Just because it is a government regulation doesn't necessarily mean more government control. I'm not advocating NN. There is a strong argument and precedent that if companies like Google want to pay more to have their content delivered faster they should be allowed to do so. Personally I am suspicious of big business and suspect that if tiered services come into play it will end up costing the end consumer (me) more. But then again, if I want to watch streaming video all day long (I do) perhaps I should pay more than my grandmother who only checks her email and the weather channel.

Right, read my post again and look what the Dems are voting for.

" but a plurality of Democrats (46%) think more regulation is the better approach."

My argument isn't backward, I just mistyped in the beginning of my last post so I see what you mean. I'll fix it. :)

[TheWickerFan]

Despare - I think you have your argument backwards. Net neutrality would prevent service providers from blocking sites. Companies like Comcast would like to be able to force consumers to use apps from companies who pay them the most rather than ones from companies that don't - net neutrality regulations would mean they couldn't block/censor. Just because it is a government regulation doesn't necessarily mean more government control. I'm not advocating NN. There is a strong argument and precedent that if companies like Google want to pay more to have their content delivered faster they should be allowed to do so. Personally I am suspicious of big business and suspect that if tiered services come into play it will end up costing the end consumer (me) more. But then again, if I want to watch streaming video all day long (I do) perhaps I should pay more than my grandmother who only checks her email and the weather channel.

That's how I interpreted it as well.

There does seem to be a lot of prejudice against government regulation. While too much isn't a good idea (I think Soviet Russia was proof enough that it doesn't work) too little can be equally disastrous (our current economic slump for example). I trust big business a lot less than I trust the government.

[Despare]

That's how I interpreted it as well.

There does seem to be a lot of prejudice against government regulation. While too much isn't a good idea (I think Soviet Russia was proof enough that it doesn't work) too little can be equally disastrous (our current economic slump for example). I trust big business a lot less than I trust the government.

Ah but there you have the issue, you trust citizens who are embracing capitalism less then you trust government officials who fight for power every year. CEOs may be corrupt but the only real power they hold is within their own company.

Another quick thing, how many times have any of you seen temporary regulation or small amounts of regulation either stay temporary or not increase?

[TheWickerFan]

CEOs may be corrupt but the only real power they hold is within their own company.


But that's not true. That's why when the banks failed, they took everyone else with them. And I think big business holds a lot of politicians in their pockets, so they can gain a foothold in the government as well.

Government regulation is the only thing keeping large businesses in check. I think the deregulation of the banks was what caused this current mess we're in, and proves that they do not have the public's interest at heart.

[Despare]

And I think big business holds a lot of politicians in their pockets

And there you go.



Another thing, I think business should fail or achieve greatness by themselves. As a Michigander I'm still upset with the auto bailout. I'm sorry, I'm just an anti-government guy I suppose, I personally don't need my hand held or need to be protected by big brother.

[TheWickerFan]

And there you go.



Another thing, I think business should fail or achieve greatness by themselves. As a Michigander I'm still upset with the auto bailout. I'm sorry, I'm just an anti-government guy I suppose, I personally don't need my hand held or need to be protected by big brother.

I agree with you on that; I'll never be sure the bailouts were a good idea.
I guess we'll never know for certain.

[Despare]

I agree with you on that; I'll never be sure the bailouts were a good idea.
I guess we'll never know for certain.

(Threads like this die when people agree on stuff! What are you doing!?)

[Zero]

too many damn guns - let's be honest about it. it isn't that Americans are violent - it is that we have so many damn guns laying around that we can just kill people instantly

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q108/zerohdc/porter6sm.jpg

[Despare]

too many damn guns - let's be honest about it. it isn't that Americans are violent - it is that we have so many damn guns laying around that we can just kill people instantly

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q108/zerohdc/porter6sm.jpg

Guns don't kill people.

Monkeys kill people.

[novakru]

too many damn guns - let's be honest about it. it isn't that Americans are violent - it is that we have so many damn guns laying around that we can just kill people instantly

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q108/zerohdc/porter6sm.jpg

Exactly!!!
Lets go back to killing each other with swords and stuff

At least it's an honorable death and ....it looks really cool:cool:

[TheWickerFan]

(Threads like this die when people agree on stuff! What are you doing!?)

Sorry about that.:(

[wufongtan.]

Why blame Palin? There is no evidence he visited her website. There is no evidence he listened to talk back radio. What the police know is he hated both sides of politics. What they also know is he was a heavy user of marijuana. They do know he supported the legalization of it. The congresswoman who he shot, said she would never support the legalization of it. Seems to me he did it over the legalization of marijuana. And not because of anything Palin said. People need to widen their ways of how they get their news. Most of the post here can almost be taken word for word off of any left winged web/news site.

[TheWickerFan]

Why blame Palin? There is no evidence he visited her website. There is no evidence he listened to talk back radio. What the police know is he hated both sides of politics. What they also know is he was a heavy user of marijuana. They do know he supported the legalization of it. The congresswoman who he shot, said she would never support the legalization of it. Seems to me he did it over the legalization of marijuana. And not because of anything Palin said. People need to widen their ways of how they get their news. Most of the post here can almost be taken word for word off of any left winged web/news site.

Who blamed Sarah Palin?:confused:

[wufongtan.]

Who blamed Sarah Palin?:confused:

I never said anyone here did. But the msm is. This is clearly the actions of the pro marijuana movement.

[TheWickerFan]

I never said anyone here did. But the msm is. This is clearly the actions of the pro marijuana movement.

I suppose his motive is of little consequence as he's clearly nuttier than a fruitcake.

[TheWickerFan]

People are sick!:mad:http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/11/20110111arizona-shootings-glock-sales.html

[bwind22]

Gun sales surged nationwide the next day. It's because paranoid fools expected some sort of immediate moratorium on sales. I wouldn't say they're sick, just stupid.

[TheWickerFan]

Gun sales surged nationwide the next day. It's because paranoid fools expected some sort of immediate moratorium on sales. I wouldn't say they're sick, just stupid.

I'm not sure that was the sole reason that particular gun started selling like hotcakes. I think a lot of people thought it would be "cool" to own the same gun the psycho had.

[scouse mac]

Ive never seen the point in gun ownership, a gun serves no purpose what so ever.

Hunting? Why do people feel the need to go out into the wilderness and shoot animals anyway, just leave them be. And the need to have armour piercing rounds, why? In response to guns have deer evolved kevlar skin?

Protection? From what if not other people with guns?

Recreation? Go down the firing range to shoot the shit out of targets? Seems like a waste of time to me but why not use pellet guns or some other none lethal object?


The whole guns dont kill people, people kill people thing is true, but the ease at which guns are available makes it significantly easier for shit like this to happen. The people in power need to step up with the bollocks to make gun ownership illegal.

[Despare]

Ive never seen the point in gun ownership, a gun serves no purpose what so ever.

Hunting? Why do people feel the need to go out into the wilderness and shoot animals anyway, just leave them be. And the need to have armour piercing rounds, why? In response to guns have deer evolved kevlar skin?

Protection? From what if not other people with guns?

Recreation? Go down the firing range to shoot the shit out of targets? Seems like a waste of time to me but why not use pellet guns or some other none lethal object?


The whole guns dont kill people, people kill people thing is true, but the ease at which guns are available makes it significantly easier for shit like this to happen. The people in power need to step up with the bollocks to make gun ownership illegal.

How about having something to protect yourself and your family if things do get out of control. Disarming the people would be a bad choice my friend, black market guns would still be easy to get for the criminals but citizens would have the power to legally obtain firearms revoked? Yikes...

[TheWickerFan]

How about having something to protect yourself and your family if things do get out of control. Disarming the people would be a bad choice my friend, black market guns would still be easy to get for the criminals but citizens would have the power to legally obtain firearms revoked? Yikes...

It probably comes as no surprise that I disagree with you. I hate guns, and think we would be better off without them. The 'only the criminals will have guns' argument doesn't hold water when you study other countries that have banned guns.

It also doesn't help that this country is a violent one. Comparing the instances of death by firearms in the UK, Canada, and the U.S.A.:

Canada (firearms are legal) - 144
UK (firearms are illegal) - 14
USA - 9,369

[bwind22]

The people in power need to step up with the bollocks to make gun ownership illegal.

Yeah, lets take away the freedom of speech, assembly, press and petition while we're at it. Matter of fact, who needs any of the Bill of Rights? I don't see any reason soldiers shouldn't be able to barge in and take over my home, the cops shouldn't be able to search and seize my property without a warrant, the legal system requires a trial by jury or cruel and unusual punishment is illegal anyway. /sarcasm

Sorry Scouse, not to sound like a dick, but right to bear arms is guaranteed by our 2nd amendment. Not only is it right there in the Bill of Rights, it's pretty close to the top of the list (2nd) which means our founding fathers thought it was pretty darn important.

There are several reasons beyond it being a guaranteed freedom, that banning guns would be a horrible idea. First and foremost is that there are already millions of them in circulation, some registered, some not. Trying to collect them all would not only be a logistical nightmare, it'd be impossible. With that in mind, why shouldn't I be able to go out and buy a gun to hunt or protect my home and family? Idiots like this asshole already have them, why can't responsible non-felons like me have one as well to shoot this fucker with if he ever came busting in to my home and threatened my family with his? As for hunting, I personally dont, not because of any moral objection, just because sitting around all day waiting for something to happen strikes me as a boring thing to do (just like fishing.) but some people love it. Why shouldn't they be able to? Not sure where you live, but without hunting, Minnesota and Wisconsin would be overrun with deer to the point that people would be hitting them in their cars all the time. Up in the northern midwest, hunting is seen as a form of animal population control.

As Despare said, even if guns were banned, there would still be a black market for them. Drugs are illegal, but still pretty easy to get. Prostitution is illegal, but a short drive to any major city will prove that hookers are still plentiful. Booze were illegal, but we all know that didn't stop anyone from drinking... Speakeasys, bootleggers and moonshine boomed. Outlawing stuff that creates problems is seldom the solution.

[TheWickerFan]

'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.'

We have a proper military now; this no longer applies. Unless you're planning on overthrowing the government.

[bwind22]

'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.'

We have a proper military now; this no longer applies. Unless you're planning on overthrowing the government.

Wow, that sounds so facist. Who are you to say it no longer applies? If the government gets out of line and no one has guns, there's nothing to keep them in check.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." There's no asterik there stating that it doesn't apply if the government has a military.

[TheWickerFan]

If the government gets out of line and no one has guns, there's nothing to keep them in check.


That's exactly the sort of scary talk that puts the rest of the world on edge about us Americans.

[bwind22]

This country was founded via a violent revolution. It's what makes us American.

[scouse mac]

Yeah, lets take away the freedom of speech, assembly, press and petition while we're at it. Matter of fact, who needs any of the Bill of Rights? I don't see any reason soldiers shouldn't be able to barge in and take over my home, the cops shouldn't be able to search and seize my property without a warrant, the legal system requires a trial by jury or cruel and unusual punishment is illegal anyway. /sarcasm

In the UK we have freedom of speech, assembly, press & petition and the complete lack of guns. No-one is bothered by this.

However, if police came into your home without a warrant your first thought would be to shoot them? I know this probably isnt true ;) but it could be interpreted that way.

the right to bear arms is guaranteed by our 2nd amendment. Not only is it right there in the Bill of Rights, it's pretty close to the top of the list (2nd) which means our founding fathers thought it was pretty darn important.

Surely that was when us Brits were just kicked out and the new country needed all its citizens to be ready in case we tried again. Im fairly confident this wont be happening soon....

There are several reasons beyond it being a guaranteed freedom, that banning guns would be a horrible idea. First and foremost is that there are already millions of them in circulation, some registered, some not. Trying to collect them all would not only be a logistical nightmare, it'd be impossible.

This would be nightmare true, there would have to be a bastard long amnesty in order for people to hand over their guns (they've had similar amnestys here in the UK with great success). Im not suggesting this is something that could be done in a short period of time but over five years, ten years? Why not?


Sorry Scouse, not to sound like a dick

You dont, you clearly feel strongly about this which is something I just dont get. The world will keep turning either way.

[bwind22]

In the UK we have freedom of speech, assembly, press & petition and the complete lack of guns. No-one is bothered by this.

If someone were to start taking away the rights you do have though, you may have an issue with it. (At least, I hope you would.) In the US we have the right to bear arms and if someone threatens to take away that right, I have a huge problem with that.

Now that being said, I'm not opposed to rules and regulations pertaining to gun ownership. We have some of those in place. (Felons can not own guns, certain guns are not legal, etc...) There's a big difference between a rancher with a rifle or tax-paying stand-up citizen owning a glock (the most affordable and user friendly handgun, which is probably why they were such a hot item when idiots feared an immediate moratorium on gun sales.) to keep in their home for protection and some 17 year old gangbanger in Detroit with an Uzi. Huge difference.

However, if police came into your home without a warrant your first thought would be to shoot them? I know this probably isnt true ;) but it could be interpreted that way.

This is actually a pretty loaded question. The police can't come in my home without a warrant. If they did, they'd be violating my civil rights. Would I shoot them? In general, no. But if it's a crooked cop breaking in to my home to rape my wife or hurt my kid, you'd better believe it.

Surely that was when us Brits were just kicked out and the new country needed all its citizens to be ready in case we tried again. Im fairly confident this wont be happening soon....

There is no disclaimer attached to it. We have the right to keep and bear arms. Simple as that. Doesn't matter if the government has a military or the Brits don't plan on attacking us. It is one of the 10 basic freedoms this country was founded on.

This would be nightmare true, there would have to be a bastard long amnesty in order for people to hand over their guns (they've had similar amnestys here in the UK with great success). Im not suggesting this is something that could be done in a short period of time but over five years, ten years? Why not?

Moving past the fact that ownership is in our BIll of Rights, because the only people that would actually turn in their weapons would be the law abiding citizens that aren't the problem in the first place. Most gun owning thugs and gangsters obtained theirs illegally anyway, why would they go hand them over to the cops when there's no record of them having one to begin with? All that would do is disarm the good people who would only shoot another person if they or their family was in legit danger.


You dont, you clearly feel strongly about this which is something I just dont get. The world will keep turning either way.

Good, glad I'm not coming off like a total asshole. I just strongly disagree with government revoking any of the rights set forth by our founding fathers and when someone suggests it as a good option, I feel like it's only fair to offer a rebuttal.

[TheWickerFan]

If someone were to start taking away the rights you do have though, you may have an issue with it.

If anything, most of Europe fight harder for their rights and privileges.This is what happened in Britain when they tried to raise tuition fees:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvOJn2LUPy4

[Despare]

It probably comes as no surprise that I disagree with you. I hate guns, and think we would be better off without them. The 'only the criminals will have guns' argument doesn't hold water when you study other countries that have banned guns.

It also doesn't help that this country is a violent one. Comparing the instances of death by firearms in the UK, Canada, and the U.S.A.:

Canada (firearms are legal) - 144
UK (firearms are illegal) - 14
USA - 9,369

Uhhhh ok, but you're just looking at guns.

CRIME PER CAPITA

# 1 Dominica: 113.822 per 1,000 people
# 2 New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
# 3 Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
# 4 Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
# 5 Chile: 88.226 per 1,000 people
# 6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
# 7 Montserrat: 80.3982 per 1,000 people
# 8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
# 9 Netherlands: 79.5779 per 1,000 people
# 10 South Africa: 77.1862 per 1,000 people
# 11 Germany: 75.9996 per 1,000 people
# 12 Canada: 75.4921 per 1,000 people


WHAT!? More crime in the UK!? Heavens to betsy...

[TheWickerFan]

Uhhhh ok, but you're just looking at guns.

CRIME PER CAPITA

# 1 Dominica: 113.822 per 1,000 people
# 2 New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
# 3 Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
# 4 Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
# 5 Chile: 88.226 per 1,000 people
# 6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
# 7 Montserrat: 80.3982 per 1,000 people
# 8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
# 9 Netherlands: 79.5779 per 1,000 people
# 10 South Africa: 77.1862 per 1,000 people
# 11 Germany: 75.9996 per 1,000 people
# 12 Canada: 75.4921 per 1,000 people


WHAT!? More crime in the UK!? Heavens to betsy...

Of course I was looking at guns; that's what we were discussing.

Murder rate by firearms per capita:

USA - 0.0279271 per 1,000 people (#8)
Canada - 0.00502972 per 1,000 people (#20)
UK - 0.00102579 per 1,000 people (#32)

The Brits do seem to be pretty violent, so I hate to think what their murder rate would be if you armed them. The Canadians, however, seem to be considerably less violent. Gun ownership is legal and very common, and yet their murder by firearms rate is significantly lower. That's what I meant about our country being a violent one.

[Despare]

Of course I was looking at guns; that's what we were discussing.

Murder rate by firearms per capita:

USA - 0.0279271 per 1,000 people (#8)
Canada - 0.00502972 per 1,000 people (#20)
UK - 0.00102579 per 1,000 people (#32)

The Brits do seem to be pretty violent, so I hate to think what their murder rate would be if you armed them. The Canadians, however, seem to be considerably less violent. Gun ownership is legal and very common, and yet their murder by firearms rate is significantly lower. That's what I meant about our country being a violent one.

Right but you're looking at countries who don't even allow them, that's like saying most cooking accidents occur in the kitchen.

Alright, if you just want to talk about guns how many gun crimes in the USA are committed with a legal firearm? I know the FBI listed in a report that 98% of crimes against officers involved an illegal gun. Not only that but 'legal' guns are used 2.5 million times a year to properly and lawfully protect citizens.
Go through the FBI's crime statistics and guess what, almost all gun crime in the USA is committed with an illegally obtained or possessed firearm.

Look at the gun ownership in Switzerland, they have a large amount of guns and VERY little crime. The answer is teaching responsible gun ownership NOT simply taking them away.

[TheWickerFan]

Right but you're looking at countries who don't even allow them, that's like saying most cooking accidents occur in the kitchen.

Alright, if you just want to talk about guns how many gun crimes in the USA are committed with a legal firearm? I know the FBI listed in a report that 98% of crimes against officers involved an illegal gun. Not only that but 'legal' guns are used 2.5 million times a year to properly and lawfully protect citizens.
Go through the FBI's crime statistics and guess what, almost all gun crime in the USA is committed with an illegally obtained or possessed firearm.

Look at the gun ownership in Switzerland, they have a large amount of guns and VERY little crime. The answer is teaching responsible gun ownership NOT simply taking them away.

Yes, I pointed out Canada which has plenty of firearms, but they don't seem as prone to blowing each other away as we are. Much like Britain, we're quite aggressive, and the ready availability of guns exacerbates the situation.

As for teaching responsible gun ownership, it clearly isn't working in this country. There are approximately 1,500 deaths by accidents involving firearms per year. A recent example:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27399337/ns/us_news-life/

[Despare]

Yes, I pointed out Canada which has plenty of firearms, but they don't seem as prone to blowing each other away as we are. Much like Britain, we're quite aggressive, and the ready availability of guns exacerbates the situation.

As for teaching responsible gun ownership, it clearly isn't working in this country. There are approximately 1,500 deaths by accidents involving firearms per year. A recent example:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27399337/ns/us_news-life/

You can't just take something away from all of the people because there are so many idiots out there. The one thing I think needs to be cracked down on is gun sales... gun shows, pawn shops, and the like are just terrible and so many illegal firearms are purchased there. If we regulated the sale of firearms properly and trained the people using them there would be no issue. Simply disarming the citizens though, it's not the answer, and trust me... shit would hit the fan if it was tried.

[TheWickerFan]

You can't just take something away from all of the people because there are so many idiots out there. The one thing I think needs to be cracked down on is gun sales... gun shows, pawn shops, and the like are just terrible and so many illegal firearms are purchased there. If we regulated the sale of firearms properly and trained the people using them there would be no issue. Simply disarming the citizens though, it's not the answer, and trust me... shit would hit the fan if it was tried.

Well I don't think that day will ever come. I think this thread alone has illustrated how strongly people feel about their right to bear arms, and I don't see that ever changing.

I agree (sorry), there are plenty of things that can be done besides banning guns to help improve the situation, but it does seem like the NRA piss and moan every single time someone suggests implementing changes, and they normally get their way.

[bwind22]

Well, the NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington which means they have a lot of control over what happens with our laws.

See there? Once again lobbyists are a HUGE part of the problem.

And just like that, this entire thread has come full circle. :)

[wufongtan.]

It The 'only the criminals will have guns' argument doesn't hold water when you study other countries that have banned guns.


When Australia issued tough arse gun laws. Gun crime has risen.


'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.'

We have a proper military now; this no longer applies. Unless you're planning on overthrowing the government.

What if the government looks to over throw the people


There is no disclaimer attached to it. We have the right to keep and bear arms. Simple as that. Doesn't matter if the government has a military or the Brits don't plan on attacking us. It is one of the 10 basic freedoms this country was founded on.


If you take out Americans right to bear arms. Then you run the risk of setting a precedent. If you change once. It no longer becomes a big deal to make changes again. Europe/ britain. Are both a mess. They have no freedoms. They would be the last people i would take advice from when it comes to what makes a better country

[Caenxavier]

If you take out Americans right to bear arms. Then you run the risk of setting a precedent. If you change once. It no longer becomes a big deal to make changes again. Europe/ britain. Are both a mess. They have no freedoms. They would be the last people i would take advice from when it comes to what makes a better country


Hell yeah, Britain is the new Nazi Germany!


I tried to buy some fish and chips and I got fish and french fries. I was all, what the fuck! Where are my Lays!

Guess that's what you get when the Queen is the law.....

[TheWickerFan]

If the government decides to overthrow the people, your gun collection isn't going to save you.

Out of curiosity, Wufong, where are you from?

[scouse mac]

Europe/ britain. Are both a mess. They have no freedoms. They would be the last people i would take advice from when it comes to what makes a better country



We're a mess? Wish someone had told me.


The biggest problem I have in the UK is the ridiculous price of fuel, Im not certain what freedoms you have that I dont? Its not like we're North Korea.

[Despare]

If the government decides to overthrow the people, your gun collection isn't going to save you.

Out of curiosity, Wufong, where are you from?

You would be surprised at how many people in the military don't feel that way. Honestly...

[bwind22]

You would be surprised at how many people in the military don't feel that way. Honestly...

Exactly. The military is made up of civilians like you and I. If the government ever got out of control to the point that the people decided to rise up against them, it's a safe bet that a healthy portion of the military would be on the people's side, not the governments.

We're a long way from that, but threatening to take away people's guns would be a pretty big step in the wrong direction.

[scouse mac]

One thing Ive learned from this thread is that people like bwind, despare & wufongtan see their right to own a gun on a par with owning a car (right?), a basic everyday thing.

I, naively it would appear, did not realize how commonplace or everyday a thing such as gun ownership is in the US and the fact that you have equated it with having the freedom of speech is stronger than I would've thought.

To put it my perspective, in my nearly 34 years Ive never even held a gun, let alone fired one. The only times Ive ever seen a gun is in the hands of the armed forces (during parades and open days etc) and armed police, primarily at airports (remember the bulk of UK police are not armed). Whilst it is possible for me to acquire one legally in the UK, it is both heavily regulated and licenced, I wouldn't have the first idea how to go about it.

Whilst the importance of the right to own one has been expressed vociferously, I still dont get why anyone would actually want to own one. But thats just me.

[Despare]

One thing Ive learned from this thread is that people like bwind, despare & wufongtan see their right to own a gun on a par with owning a car (right?), a basic everyday thing.

I, naively it would appear, did not realize how commonplace or everyday a thing such as gun ownership is in the US and the fact that you have equated it with having the freedom of speech is stronger than I would've thought.

To put it my perspective, in my nearly 34 years Ive never even held a gun, let alone fired one. The only times Ive ever seen a gun is in the hands of the armed forces (during parades and open days etc) and armed police, primarily at airports (remember the bulk of UK police are not armed). Whilst it is possible for me to acquire one legally in the UK, it is both heavily regulated and licenced, I wouldn't have the first idea how to go about it.

Whilst the importance of the right to own one has been expressed vociferously, I still dont get why anyone would actually want to own one. But thats just me.

My friend, do you even know if we all own guns? Does the constitution say anything about owning a means of transportation? Despite how outdated some may tell you it is, or feel it is, our constitutional rights should be defended. Owning a car is so much different (although you still need a test and license to drive one, you can't just hop in one and go).