Crazy gun laws

[Revoltingest]

'Tis true. The American culture favours violence as a problem solving method. Until that changes, gun laws will be without effect.

As an aside, why does spellcheck say Braziliastanians is spelled wrong but Canuckistanians is okay? Did I miss another coup?

I just made up "Braziliastanian".
It takes a little while before my neologisms are widely adopted.

Btw, I just noticed that "neologism" sounds like a porn industry term for something which is newly lower than before.

 

[Brickjectivity]

While I acknowledge the dangers of guns I think that the real problems here are racism, the new wealth divide and lots of social suffering. So, yes guns are dangerous, but its silly to say that its the presence of guns causing the majority of crime. In particular its silly to compare our crime rates to Canada's and blame the difference on guns. That is not at all realistic and avoids the pertinent facts. Our culture has been deeply screwed by racism and by a lot of fundamentalism, both of which have also contributed to the incarceration of people who probably could have been rehabilitated who are instead in prison. Our crime rates are both too high and also artificially high, not because of guns but mainly because of other issues.

If you want to argue that the presence of guns makes crimes worse, then please by all means go ahead; but don't try to tell me that guns are creating crime. What's causing crime is a mountain of crap that has happened. Its ridiculous how many people can't just get a job, buy a house and live, how many don't have health care etc. It ridiculous that we have snake handling churches. Ok? Its not all because of guns, so lets please stop trying to drive the guns into the sea without dealing with the really big and solvable problems.

Also Canada is like 0 degrees or less for too long every year, so you got nothing to say, Wirey. @Wirey

Michigan? Isn't that were Florida gets most of its retirees from? @metis

 

[Revoltingest]

While I acknowledge the dangers of guns I think that the real problems here are racism, the new wealth divide and lots of social suffering. So, yes guns are dangerous, but its silly to say that its the presence of guns causing the majority of crime. In particular its silly to compare our crime rates to Canada's and blame the difference on guns. That is not at all realistic and avoids the pertinent facts. Our culture has been deeply screwed by racism and by a lot of fundamentalism, both of which have also contributed to the incarceration of people who probably could have been rehabilitated who are instead in prison. Our crime rates are both too high and also artificially high, not because of guns but mainly because of other issues.

If you want to argue that the presence of guns makes crimes worse, then please by all means go ahead; but don't try to tell me that guns are creating crime. What's causing crime is a mountain of crap that has happened. Its ridiculous how many people can't just get a job, buy a house and live, how many don't have health care etc. It ridiculous that we have snake handling churches. Ok? Its not all because of guns, so lets please stop trying to drive the guns into the sea without dealing with the really big and solvable problems.

Also Canada is like 0 degrees or less for too long every year, so you got nothing to say, Wirey. @Wirey

Michigan? Isn't that were Florida gets most of its retirees from? @metis

If you're implying that fundie religions cause crime, I don't buy it.
If not, then we be good.

 

[icehorse]

Funny yes, but I still disagree...

I'm not sure what you want for responses, you put this in the debate thread, but it is jokes not necessarily well argued or articulated points. So, it is funny and good for a laugh. Thank you for sharing.

What parts of the video did you disagree with?

 

[icehorse]

While I acknowledge the dangers of guns I think that the real problems here are racism, the new wealth divide and lots of social suffering. So, yes guns are dangerous, but its silly to say that its the presence of guns causing the majority of crime. In particular its silly to compare our crime rates to Canada's and blame the difference on guns. That is not at all realistic and avoids the pertinent facts. Our culture has been deeply screwed by racism and by a lot of fundamentalism, both of which have also contributed to the incarceration of people who probably could have been rehabilitated who are instead in prison. Our crime rates are both too high and also artificially high, not because of guns but mainly because of other issues.

If you want to argue that the presence of guns makes crimes worse, then please by all means go ahead; but don't try to tell me that guns are creating crime. What's causing crime is a mountain of crap that has happened. Its ridiculous how many people can't just get a job, buy a house and live, how many don't have health care etc. It ridiculous that we have snake handling churches. Ok? Its not all because of guns, so lets please stop trying to drive the guns into the sea without dealing with the really big and solvable problems.

Also Canada is like 0 degrees or less for too long every year, so you got nothing to say, Wirey. @Wirey

Michigan? Isn't that were Florida gets most of its retirees from? @metis

Lots of apple / orange comparisons here. How about we look only at cases of domestic violence or accidents in the home...

 

[icehorse]

One outside opinion about Europe is that they are in a brief period of time where everything seems safe and cozy. They have brand new shiny governments set up during the rebuilding, and their governments take care of them, supposedly. There is a fresh feeling of invulnerability apparently and a feeling that they have reached a new modern age, which is not untrue. They are also very small countries relative to the amount of land governed by our frankly oversized centralized government, a size which is both an advantage and a huge risk. I understand, based upon the smaller independent governments in Europe why they feel guns aren't worthwhile; but things are different here. We aren't in Europe, and we aren't recently formed from the ashes of a huge devastating war. Our government is of monstrous size, and a single bad decision in the white house can put us all into a very difficult position. You Europeans can flee from one state to another, and your military isn't nearly so large. We have become one large state. There's nowhere to run. Look at what our government recently was doing behind our backs: recording as much about us as it could get away with. It was a blatant attempt to control the vote, no matter what excuses were given. Surely you see how dangerous that is and how stupid the govt was for doing that? You honestly think that life in the USA is at all the same as life in Europe? That we are as safe as you are? No. We are in a much more precarious position than you.

Keep in mind the immense size of the USA. It takes 3 days to drive across, and our govt. has proven multiple times that it can make vicious and unjustified decisions. You may think its funny for US citizens to have weapon rights, but our politicians must sleep knowing their citizens are armed. That makes a difference. It is one of the few equalizers permitted to us, and it is also the frontline for many other protections. For example we are allowed to have software encryption, and that also stems from the same reasoning about guns. Yes, we could use software encryption to do harm; but its our right. Our most famous presidents, Kennedy and Lincoln were shot; and they each accepted that possibility when they ran for office. They were shot, which was tragic, however it was also patriotic. Its patriotic to accept risks for the sake of the general welfare, and for our country with its huge land base and giant government and over-sized military, probably still a very good idea.

I'm sure that in Europe at the moment things feel really nice and look positively rosy. Your governments wouldn't betray you. You don't need guns. Fine. Trust your government.

I can *almost* buy the idea that politicians might be kept in check with the knowledge that a disgruntled voter might shoot them... almost.

As for the idea of fighting the government, as Jim Jeffries said in the video: "You're bringing a gun to a drone fight, son."

 

[Brickjectivity]

If you're implying that fundie religions cause crime, I don't buy it.

No, but I personally think they are somewhat responsible for artificially high incarceration rates, since they are manipulated too easily by political promises and other machinations. I believe I have said enough.

I can *almost* buy the idea that politicians might be kept in check with the knowledge that a disgruntled voter might shoot them... almost.

As for the idea of fighting the government, as Jim Jeffries said in the video: "You're bringing a gun to a drone fight, son."

No, I would certainly bring a drone to a drone fight, and its not that I have to have drones. Its that I am entrusted with that power. It isn't that I have to own a gun but that the government derives its authority from me, not the other way around.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, but I personally think they are somewhat responsible for artificially high incarceration rates, since they are manipulated too easily by political promises. I believe I have said enough.

People in general are easily manipulated....including even us heathens.
We (not me) voted in politicians who do what they do....& then the same people re-elect them.
Obama isn't the favorite of fundies, but look at how he advances the police state.
No.....our problem is not religion.

 

[icehorse]

No, I would certainly bring a drone to a drone fight, and its not that I have to have drones. Its that I am entrusted with that power. It isn't that I have to own a gun but that the government derives its authority from me, not the other way around.

I agree with you concerning the origin of authority. How does that idea figure in?

 

[Awoon]

Tomorrow I should pick up this.....Kimber America | Micro Carry Stainless | Micro

 

[Revoltingest]

What kind of carry holster.....pocket, IWB, other?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I agree with you concerning the origin of authority. How does that idea figure in?

It isn't enough for the government to give lip service or to symbolically say that it derives its authority from the citizens. Sometimes the govt. forgets and has to be forced to remember who its parent is, as in for example the case of Miranda vs. Arizona (from which comes the famous 'Miranda rights' that police must recite during arrests). If we want to follow the example of the royal countries and commonwealths in which protection and rights are derived from the government (which is un-American), then sure no weapons deemed unnecessary by our parent, our government, should be permitted. If we still believe that authority and the duty to protect is derived from citizens, then the govt. has no business stripping citizens of weapons. We are the authority, and we allow the govt. powers and allow it to have a military, not the other way around. If you give up the right to 'Bear arms' you acknowledge authority is derived from the govt. and only what the govt. allows trickles down to us. You may as well just go ahead and hand over power over the country to someone really smart who will do a better job of ruling than we the people, because that is eventually what you will do if you give up the right to bear arms. Then our republic turns into a govt. for the govt. by the govt. and screws we the people. As it is its already gotten us into wars that it shouldn't have and disrespected us. It is testing us once again, pushing to become the parent instead of the child.

 

[Awoon]

What kind of carry holster.....pocket, IWB, other?

Haven't gotten one yet.

 

[Curious George]

What parts of the video did you disagree with?

The idea that guns do not or cannot practically serve as protection, the idea that guns cannot both be responsibly cared and serve as protection, the idea that the only argument for guns is that "I like guns." Don't misunderstand I enjoyed the jokes. They are funny, but just because something is funny does not mean it is in anyway a compelling argument, or meant as such.

 

[Curious George]

It isn't enough for the government to give lip service or to symbolically say that it derives its authority from the citizens. Sometimes the govt. forgets and has to be forced to remember who its parent is, as in for example the case of Miranda vs. Arizona (from which comes the famous 'Miranda rights' that police must recite during arrests). If we want to follow the example of the royal countries and commonwealths in which protection and rights are derived from the government (which is un-American), then sure no weapons deemed unnecessary by our parent, our government, should be permitted. If we still believe that authority and the duty to protect is derived from citizens, then the govt. has no business stripping citizens of weapons. We are the authority, and we allow the govt. powers and allow it to have a military, not the other way around. If you give up the right to 'Bear arms' you acknowledge authority is derived from the govt. and only what the govt. allows trickles down to us. You may as well just go ahead and hand over power over the country to someone really smart who will do a better job of ruling than we the people, because that is eventually what you will do if you give up the right to bear arms. Then our republic turns into a govt. for the govt. by the govt. and screws we the people. As it is its already gotten us into wars that it shouldn't have and disrespected us. It is testing us once again, pushing to become the parent instead of the child.

Hmm, I am not sure this works. We do allow the government to regulate weapons. Allowing the government to do so to such a degree that guns were banned would not change the fact that we allowed the government to do so. It is not "the government" that is trying to take away anything. It is some of the people that are trying to take away these rights. No politician, despite the death rates or evidence would try to take away these rights if they were not representing a large or powerful group who wanted this done.

 

[Curious George]

People in general are easily manipulated....including even us heathens.
We (not me) voted in politicians who do what they do....& then the same people re-elect them.
Obama isn't the favorite of fundies, but look at how he advances the police state.
No.....our problem is not religion.

None of the presidents, with the possible exception of Roosevelt, did what they wanted. They are people with their own agenda and ideas, but usually such agendas are small and come from social groups of which they are a part. The real movement comes from interest groups pushing and persuading. Whether those interest groups are specific corporate entities, large groups of people, unions, or the like is often hard to determine. But most politicians want to be politicians and little more. They play the game such that they satiate their need for money, power, status, glory, or the like...maybe they have a few ideas on how things could be better such is often found in libertarians or green party people, but by and large very few have any grand designs. This short sightedness hardly lends itself to "government" being cohesive or doing as they please...they are doing as they are told...This is the American way. That we allow powerful groups to contend with single individuals, or that we let money rule over logic, is unfortunate...But it is as it has been designed.

 

[Curious George]

I can *almost* buy the idea that politicians might be kept in check with the knowledge that a disgruntled voter might shoot them... almost.

As for the idea of fighting the government, as Jim Jeffries said in the video: "You're bringing a gun to a drone fight, son."

Yes, but if you were going to a drone fight and had no drone what would you bring? Silverware?

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, but if you were going to a drone fight and had no drone what would you bring? Silverware?

Survival in a drone fight?
I'd want what the hero in the Bourne Legacy had....... a take-down semi-automatic high-power long-range big-bore scoped-out sniper-rifle, with a good-eye, steady-hand and lots of training.
Oh b-gger.......... more crazy guns!

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hmm, I am not sure this works. We do allow the government to regulate weapons. Allowing the government to do so to such a degree that guns were banned would not change the fact that we allowed the government to do so. It is not "the government" that is trying to take away anything. It is some of the people that are trying to take away these rights. No politician, despite the death rates or evidence would try to take away these rights if they were not representing a large or powerful group who wanted this done.

What I mean by the govt. trying to take away rights. Its the general tendency of government and aristocracy to hate any system destabilizing power in the hands of the lower class people.

I see what you mean that it is people, but I still see a tension between government(s) and any sort of technical ability, any kind of self defensive capability, and that tension is evident throughout history. When the US was first founded many governments thought it would fall apart, because they thought it was insane to entrust government to the people. That is the same argument that is being made about the right to bear arms,and its the same argument that has always been used against people with technical knowledge. "Technical knowledge is base and corrupts." "Weapons should only belong to the warrior classes," and "Education is only for the noble." They're saying its insane to let the people have weapons on the basis that criminals use power for crime, but what does the government and what does the aristocracy use power for? They have power, and they have weapons.

 

[Revoltingest]

None of the presidents, with the possible exception of Roosevelt, did what they wanted. They are people with their own agenda and ideas, but usually such agendas are small and come from social groups of which they are a part. The real movement comes from interest groups pushing and persuading. Whether those interest groups are specific corporate entities, large groups of people, unions, or the like is often hard to determine. But most politicians want to be politicians and little more. They play the game such that they satiate their need for money, power, status, glory, or the like...maybe they have a few ideas on how things could be better such is often found in libertarians or green party people, but by and large very few have any grand designs. This short sightedness hardly lends itself to "government" being cohesive or doing as they please...they are doing as they are told...This is the American way. That we allow powerful groups to contend with single individuals, or that we let money rule over logic, is unfortunate...But it is as it has been designed.

Obama is only one example of a politician who isn't in the fundie camp, but endures in office with a discrepancy between promises & acts.
Sure, he shares power, & cannot do all that he wants.
But I look at the things which are under his control, eg, advancing the police state, continuing the overseas wars.