General / Off-Topic Gun Nut America
- Thread starter Brimstone
- Start date
Avago Earo
Banned
Looks like the guy in the video has an agenda. Look at the countries that are above the US. A lot of them are in states of civil war. And then look at the sates he quotes figures from. A lot of them are high crime areas anyway.
If I lved in the US I'd probably carry a gun just to protect myself from people like him.
If I lved in the US I'd probably carry a gun just to protect myself from people like him.
Heavily gun-controlled cities....LOL
The supreme court made it so no municipality could ban guns in any way.
Disingenuous statements like that should color how you view this....if just the vitriol itself
I've lived in "murdervilles"...St. Louis, Kansas City and Chicago
The gun related murder is directly related to socio-economic status. Poor people kill each other...this is as old as time, until they start killing the wealthy (all in due time)
So the answer seems to be, take guns away from the poor...but how do you do that? You can't, not as long as there is a thriving legal market for the weapons they want. Further, you can't have one set of rights for the wealthy and another set of rights for the poor. We (Americans) live in a country of short-sighted moronic behavior. Yes, the left quickly look to the gun to place blame. And it deserves some of the blame, as it makes it really really really easy to kill another person. However, the right, in defense of guns, messes up their message. They could be pointing at the poor and the squalor-like conditions they are living in (while in the wealthiest nation in the world, mind) and trying to suggest that the solution is not gun bans but instead, fair wages and greater opportunity (we've seen that the current economic model served up by the GOP is not capable of creating jobs, it does the opposite). However, while there are many on the right, who believe government has a place in creating opportunity for the poor, those that run the machine are interested in keeping the poor as poor as possible. You see, the poor line the pockets of the elite b/c they can't afford not to spend their money the moment they get it. They are forced to pay inflated prices because the lack the capital to take advantage of the deals and breaks that the middle class and wealthy can easily take part in. Make them pay more while paying them less and less (luckily, I'm not in that position, but if I were, I'd consider violence being a viable way to get what I want/need).
So...yes, the video is right to say that guns, alone, are not the problem. However, it stops at placing blame at those who live in the worst/poorest parts of some of our cities. When has casting blame ever solved anything?
The progressive left tries to help the poor, but with a polarized representative government there is no longer a middle ground for getting the business of governance done. Unadulterated liberal plans would bankrupt the country, just as similarly unadulterated conservative plans would plunge government into anarchy. That compromise has been dead for some time now...and that is why we are where we are...the number of poor grow every day, the middle-class is shrinking, gun violence peaks in the cities, infrastructure is falling down, schools are insufficient, college is not generally attainable and exceptionalism is only a faint memory. If the left and the right could work together instead of always looking at the next election cycle, we might be able to address some of our biggest problems.
Instead, we are forced to swallow these wedge issues so we can squabble among ourselves while our real enemies to freedom fleece the country.
But it is even hard to do anything about our representation...congress is widely hated but everyone loves their own representative. Thus, they get reelected to bring about the same congress we all hate. If we want to address violence in the cities, we need to purge congress...purge the lobbyist...purge the PACs...purge the wealthy who aim to shape the country into their vision.
Sorry for the rant...I'm just so sick of this us vs them attitude. Just think of all the great things that could happen if our representatives could find compromise.
FWIW, I support personal gun ownership that is reasonably regulated. I don't, however, support the sale of assault weapons. Those are for attacking with intent to kill. Since no civvie should be attacking any other person, there is no purpose for them.
The supreme court made it so no municipality could ban guns in any way.
Disingenuous statements like that should color how you view this....if just the vitriol itself
I've lived in "murdervilles"...St. Louis, Kansas City and Chicago
The gun related murder is directly related to socio-economic status. Poor people kill each other...this is as old as time, until they start killing the wealthy (all in due time)
So the answer seems to be, take guns away from the poor...but how do you do that? You can't, not as long as there is a thriving legal market for the weapons they want. Further, you can't have one set of rights for the wealthy and another set of rights for the poor. We (Americans) live in a country of short-sighted moronic behavior. Yes, the left quickly look to the gun to place blame. And it deserves some of the blame, as it makes it really really really easy to kill another person. However, the right, in defense of guns, messes up their message. They could be pointing at the poor and the squalor-like conditions they are living in (while in the wealthiest nation in the world, mind) and trying to suggest that the solution is not gun bans but instead, fair wages and greater opportunity (we've seen that the current economic model served up by the GOP is not capable of creating jobs, it does the opposite). However, while there are many on the right, who believe government has a place in creating opportunity for the poor, those that run the machine are interested in keeping the poor as poor as possible. You see, the poor line the pockets of the elite b/c they can't afford not to spend their money the moment they get it. They are forced to pay inflated prices because the lack the capital to take advantage of the deals and breaks that the middle class and wealthy can easily take part in. Make them pay more while paying them less and less (luckily, I'm not in that position, but if I were, I'd consider violence being a viable way to get what I want/need).
So...yes, the video is right to say that guns, alone, are not the problem. However, it stops at placing blame at those who live in the worst/poorest parts of some of our cities. When has casting blame ever solved anything?
The progressive left tries to help the poor, but with a polarized representative government there is no longer a middle ground for getting the business of governance done. Unadulterated liberal plans would bankrupt the country, just as similarly unadulterated conservative plans would plunge government into anarchy. That compromise has been dead for some time now...and that is why we are where we are...the number of poor grow every day, the middle-class is shrinking, gun violence peaks in the cities, infrastructure is falling down, schools are insufficient, college is not generally attainable and exceptionalism is only a faint memory. If the left and the right could work together instead of always looking at the next election cycle, we might be able to address some of our biggest problems.
Instead, we are forced to swallow these wedge issues so we can squabble among ourselves while our real enemies to freedom fleece the country.
But it is even hard to do anything about our representation...congress is widely hated but everyone loves their own representative. Thus, they get reelected to bring about the same congress we all hate. If we want to address violence in the cities, we need to purge congress...purge the lobbyist...purge the PACs...purge the wealthy who aim to shape the country into their vision.
Sorry for the rant...I'm just so sick of this us vs them attitude. Just think of all the great things that could happen if our representatives could find compromise.
FWIW, I support personal gun ownership that is reasonably regulated. I don't, however, support the sale of assault weapons. Those are for attacking with intent to kill. Since no civvie should be attacking any other person, there is no purpose for them.
Moral bedders on the left?
Left wing weenie case?
Don't care, not my problem.
Incidentally, his figures are a wee bit,....... contrived. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country (He did say at the start, he was using Wikipedia as his reference. )
But still don't care. Not our problem. Good luck America.
Left wing weenie case?
Don't care, not my problem.
Incidentally, his figures are a wee bit,....... contrived. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country (He did say at the start, he was using Wikipedia as his reference. )
But still don't care. Not our problem. Good luck America.
The "morally superior" comment got me - as if it's a bad thing.
If you want to have guns, it seems that's up to you...but I'm going to think you're a bit juvenile and potentially dangerous. It's like carrying a knife in the UK: If you do, you're a . (Besides, it's illegal anyway.)
Would I carry one if everyone else carried one? Possibly, and that's a bit more understandable - but I'd only do it because I'd be concerned that anyone could potentially stab or shoot me - and that's my point. Perhaps it's better if everyone isn't walking around with weapons.
If you want to have guns, it seems that's up to you...but I'm going to think you're a bit juvenile and potentially dangerous. It's like carrying a knife in the UK: If you do, you're a . (Besides, it's illegal anyway.)
Would I carry one if everyone else carried one? Possibly, and that's a bit more understandable - but I'd only do it because I'd be concerned that anyone could potentially stab or shoot me - and that's my point. Perhaps it's better if everyone isn't walking around with weapons.
Last edited:
Didn't they used to scrap dumb amendments? Problem solved.
Sorry but this is a somewhat blinkered view. In the end guns are used for one purpose... to kill. They are not made for anything else. Whilst its true in more deprived areas gun crime probably will be higher, but then thats almost like you are saying its not the guns fault .. well it is.
As yes it could be easily fixed, by making guns illegal (to own and to use other than for policing, sport and pet control), of course thats against the constitution so it won't ever happen. Therefore the issue won't ever get fixed. There is no compromise here, its one or the other in the end.
You have a year or two amnesty where everyone hands their guns into their local police station, and then after that, thats it. It really isn't difficult legally , but whilst the US is obsessed with guns its not going to change. They are obviously not bothered about all the mass shootings that go on.
Let me say it like this, free responsible people are not a threat to anyone, even if they are heavily armed. You can always get a gun, even in countries where its suppose to be under control you can buy whatever you want illegally. Just look at Norway and that nut who killed all those people on that island.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Never take a knife to a gun fight.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Never take a knife to a gun fight.
Minonian
Banned
They are not nuts but nut jobs. There are a difference.
Too many love towards violence and weapons and no respect toward life. They are just thinking it's a game. But when innocents can get hurt, or be killed? It's not!
that's the real issue in America.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Too many love towards violence and weapons and no respect toward life. They are just thinking it's a game. But when innocents can get hurt, or be killed? It's not!
that's the real issue in America.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Big rep!
The thing I've never understood about the second amendment is how people make a big deal about how important it is, whilst utterly ignoring most of the text.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."
From that as I understand it you could argue that anyone who wants a gun should produce ID issued by a well regulated militia, the gun should then be sent direct to the militia's armoury and kept there ready for issue in the event of the militia being called up for active service. Any applicants who refuse don't join therefore they can't buy guns and any militia that fails to enforce it is not well regulated and cannot be armed.
No guns in private hands, completely within the letter and spirit of the second ammendment.
For my next trick peace in the middle east.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."
From that as I understand it you could argue that anyone who wants a gun should produce ID issued by a well regulated militia, the gun should then be sent direct to the militia's armoury and kept there ready for issue in the event of the militia being called up for active service. Any applicants who refuse don't join therefore they can't buy guns and any militia that fails to enforce it is not well regulated and cannot be armed.
No guns in private hands, completely within the letter and spirit of the second ammendment.
For my next trick peace in the middle east.
Last edited:
I wondered the same thing. It seems many have. The wording suggests that the US should be defended by citizen's armys, which is in keeping with the aims of those founding the USA. Individuals are not mentioned at all.
The response is always that the Supreme Court didn't see it that way.
So please we are not part of that mess.
[video=youtube;TABgNerEro8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TABgNerEro8[/video]
Charlie Booker demonstrates why Americans will never listen to Britons.
Fortunately this video finishes with a brilliant polemic from Doug Stanhope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Stanhope
Charlie Booker demonstrates why Americans will never listen to Britons.
Fortunately this video finishes with a brilliant polemic from Doug Stanhope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Stanhope
That is one interpretation...see the problem here is we don't have definitions for much of what is said in the 2nd Amendment.
What is a well-regulated militia? Is it able-bodied men in a community who meet once a week for basic training? Is it something as simple as a list of people nearby with guns? Or does it need to be more like a standing army, with leadership positions, units etc...?
From my perspective, a well-regulated militia is one that can mobilize at a moment's notice. Once the call is made, all should know where to go and how to prepare. This requires some minimum of organization and training.
Plusalso, a militia or even a large band of militias will never stand to the Federal army. The US Government, being on home turf, could easily dispose of the opposition without even firing a single bullet. Taking down a tyrannical government would have to be done through more intelligence and social engineering type methods.
Our culture is warped by guns and violence. Desensitized and infatuated (even those who don't have guns) we are incapable of seeing gun ownership the way others do. Look at it this way...if 20 children getting shot dead while in school didn't change anything (except add more guns to the mix) then don't expect the latest tragedy (which most likely won't be worse than 20 tiny children getting murdered) to change a damn thing.