Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just saying this and wanting it to be true does not make it so.
As it applies to American Law, Culture, etc - it is definitely true. Your obvious lack of knowledge about our laws, our way of life is just that - obvious.
I find it curious how folks in different countries feel qulified to judge our ownership of firearms and how even some who live here can wish to model ourselves after these same foriegn entities. Also how the subject of hunting and other "sporting purposes" always comes up when discussing the subject of firearms ownership. While I use my guns for such things I do not consider "sporting" with firearms to be a right per se. They are a privelidge we enjot that is associated with the right to bear arms but they can hardly be considered the end all be all of firearms ownership. At the end of the day, I am armed to be prepared for the unthinkable. I see a firearm as being no different than any other tool I have about the house. I use them on a daily basis ( I have at least one with me anyway) and I see no correlation between "sporting purposes" and the second ammendment. I rather like the idea that the government and those who wish to grant the same sweeping power over us are annoyed by We the People being armed. Private arms were certainly an "annoyance" to the forces of George the Third as well. With our being armed comes an attitude of self reliance and independence that rather annoys those who wish to rule over us as well. I suppose it's understandable that Europeans have a skewed view of firearms ownership and self reliance. Their roots are based totally in Monarchies and unquestioning acceptance of authority. Americans cast those restraints off and struck out on our own. We need no all powerful central power to take care of us and actually find the idea distasteful. (Most of us anyway) Thus our mindset is alien to those across the pond that are used to being taken care of and babysat by a powerful and semi omniscient cental government. Americans still have that streak of wildness and independence ingrained in us and we don't want to be watched over. (I don't any way, and I'm certain I'm NOT alone in this). I can't depend on the government to protect my place, or the police either, so I have equipped myself to take care of things myself. I will continue to do so. Nuf said...........
I find it curious how folks in different countries feel qulified to judge our ownership of firearms and how even some who live here can wish to model ourselves after these same foriegn entities.
Why? Isn't the American government doing the same in other countries?
America has no problem with ignoring UN regulations (which they helped set up themselves) and invade other countries over oil or what not.
Or refuse foreign aid if the countries who need it aren't willing to play ball with the US government.
Originally Posted by Greatday
Quote:
As it applies to American Law, Culture, etc - it is definitely true.
Ya obviously forgot American history or did you leave it out intentionally?
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker According to the Gaza problem the Jews in Israel wouldn't know the difference either.
That is relevant how?
Quote:
Right and people can't die from being 'borderline' tortured.
FYI your answer implies that according to you there is no difference between the Nazis and Americans because both were just following orders.
You are a silly man. The Jews did nothing to Germany, hitler or the German people. However, radical Muslims have killed Americans, destroyed American interests & attacked us on our own soil.
Quote:
There still are ex-Nazis who, like you, are convinced they did nothing wrong because they just followed their government's orders (the fact that they helped to exterminate 1000s of Jews is irrelevant to them).
For one thing it wasn't thousands but millions & for another they are correct, they followed orders. To say otherwise would be to say that ALL Germany was culpable since the entire country was involved in their war effort.
Quote:
The Dutch government actually saved my family because they are Christians.
Everybody makes mistakes.
Quote:
Staying there would've meant that they would be slaughtered by the Indonesians.
Why couldn't they defend themselves?
Because you were defensless maybe?
Quote:
The only thing is that the Dutch government used a lie to trick us to come to Holland, but after a few decades they apologised to us for lying.
Awesome of them to say they are sorry. Only trouble is you are in the same boat as before & when the time comes that the next tyrant wants to kill you for your beliefs there will still be nothing you can do about it.
Originally Posted by NVplumber Why? Isn't the American government doing the same in other countries?
Nope
Quote:
America has no problem with ignoring UN regulations (which they helped set up themselves) and invade other countries over oil or what not.
Lets be realistic here. The UN has grown to include countries that have no interest in world peace or development. Because of that it cant come to a reasonable concensus on meaningful issues. Iraq is a good example. They Played around for 12 years while Hussein & the Islamic world laughed. Eventually we had enough & did what should have been done at least ten years earlier by the UN.
Quote:
Or refuse foreign aid if the countries who need it aren't willing to play ball with the US government.
How much Aid does the Netherregions give to other countries? The USA gives forien aid far & above what ANY country worldwide does. Your country would not exist otherwise.
Why would we give it to those unwilling to cooperate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday Ya obviously forgot American history or did you leave it out intentionally?
I imagine he left it out because its irrelevant to the discussion, but I imagine he dwarfs you there too.
World history shows that the once great Dutch people have let their country devolve to an unimportant non player on the global scene & allowed their rights to be erased so as to be accepted by the ever growing socialist movement in Europe.
Heck, maybe the cold war isn't over & communism is stealthilly spreading its roots while we bicker about something that concerns you not at all.
It's funny, isn't it? People seem to be fine with "the police" and "the military" having arms, but they can't let their "neighbor" have them... Who do they think the military and police are? Don't they also live among us? In this nation, where all citizens are supposed to have equality, why should the military and the police become first-class (privileged) citizens while the rest of us are relegated to second-class status? Why is it that people base someone's privilege to own a gun on their profession? That's like saying only baseball players can have bats, or chauffeurs can have cars.
even worse, they want to put guns in the hands only of those that bow to their same political idols and spout the same political mantras. if you would be in opposition to their ideologies, you would be swept aside with no recourse.
firearms set up a political equal ground, where every group might still have the means of force necessary to own a vote and a voice. too often throughout history, those without the sheer mass, force of arms, or staggering amounts of technology or education have lost their rights to the whims of others that considered themselves superior and elite.
firearms are certainly not the only equalizer, nor necessarily the best (every situation warrants a unique response), but they are one nonetheless, and have been a means of denying totalitarian control of our government for well over 200 years now.
once that right is gone, it is only a matter of time before others are removed.
Quote:
In case you can't tell, I've rather enjoyed the discussion. It's fun for me at the moment. I kept pretty quiet for the first 100 or so pages, but now, I'm having fun. When it ceases to be fun, I'll heed the recommendation, if necessary.
i can understand. it was fun for a bit for me as well. that was back when i was under the assumption that tricky and rl would debate like normal, respectable people, concede obvious truths, answer questions, comment without condescension and insult, etc.
since realization has set in that the truth lies in the opposite direction, it has become only a frustration. if it were only those two, i wouldn't care. but there are others out there that lurk on this thread, some who think like them and some who have yet to make a decision.
so, have at it.
aaron out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And you do since yur American?
Just saying this and wanting it to be true does not make it so.
. Also how the subject of hunting and other "sporting purposes" always comes up when discussing the subject of firearms ownership. While I use my guns for such things I do not consider "sporting" with firearms to be a right per se. They are a privelidge we enjot that is associated with the right to bear arms but they can hardly be considered the end all be all of firearms ownership. At the end of the day, I am armed to be prepared for the unthinkable. I see a firearm as being no different than any other tool I have about the house. I use them on a daily basis ( I have at least one with me anyway) and I see no correlation between "sporting purposes" and the second ammendment. I rather like the idea that the government and those who wish to grant the same sweeping power over us are annoyed by We the People being armed. Private arms were certainly an "annoyance" to the forces of George the Third as well. With our being armed comes an attitude of self reliance and independence that rather annoys those who wish to rule over us as well. I suppose it's understandable that Europeans have a skewed view of firearms ownership and self reliance. Their roots are based totally in Monarchies and unquestioning acceptance of authority. Americans cast those restraints off and struck out on our own. We need no all powerful central power to take care of us and actually find the idea distasteful. (Most of us anyway) Thus our mindset is alien to those across the pond that are used to being taken care of and babysat by a powerful and semi omniscient cental government. Americans still have that streak of wildness and independence ingrained in us and we don't want to be watched over. (I don't any way, and I'm certain I'm NOT alone in this). I can't depend on the government to protect my place, or the police either, so I have equipped myself to take care of things myself. I will continue to do so. Nuf said...........
Why? Isn't the American government doing the same in other countries?
According to the Gaza problem the Jews in Israel wouldn't know the difference either.
Right and people can't die from being 'borderline' tortured.
There still are ex-Nazis who, like you, are convinced they did nothing wrong because they just followed their government's orders (the fact that they helped to exterminate 1000s of Jews is irrelevant to them).
