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.
You are asking if there is a better place then why don't they go there? Well, isn't that why people move usually? But what's to stop someone from making the place they live better too?
There's a stark difference between making subtle changes that facilitate an overall improvement and making fundamental changes that completely redefine a system.
My question is this. If someone believes that the rights our Constitution guarantees are flawed, why don't they move to a country that has a structure more in line with their way of thinking? This isn't a "go live in France if you don't like it" comment; this is a genuine question to those who think that there are that many things that other countries do better than we do.
So again, I ask, if you honestly believe that some other country is so much better than the United States, based primarily on their system of government, which might allow for such things as gun bans, socialized medicine, or whatever your primary interests are, why are you still here? Why are you trying to change this country, which was designed specifically to be different than the others, into something that it wasn't meant to be? If there's another place that you feel would suit you better, why aren't you there?
I can answer this honestly because I've been faced with this. I would LOVE to move to another country. But my entire family and all of my friends are here, and it is more important to me to be close to them.
As for the reason why some of us stay here and want change, well simply put I guess it's the American spirit. Our founding fathers saw the world they were living in at that time, weren't happy with it, and made changes.
If you would, please return the favor and answer this question for me:
Why is it that so many people, usually conservatives, are steadfast in this belief that things should never change? Why ignore the needs of the real world as we live in it today and instead focus on the way things were 200 years ago.
For example, there are 350,000,000 people in the US in 2013. When the first Census was taken in 1790 there were 3,929,214. (1790 United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) so I guess my real question is do you really believe that the same laws that governed over a country of under 4 million would be relevant to a country of over 350 million?
I can answer this honestly because I've been faced with this. I would LOVE to move to another country. But my entire family and all of my friends are here, and it is more important to me to be close to them.
As for the reason why some of us stay here and want change, well simply put I guess it's the American spirit. Our founding fathers saw the world they were living in at that time, weren't happy with it, and made changes.
If you would, please return the favor and answer this question for me:
Why is it that so many people, usually conservatives, are steadfast in this belief that things should never change? Why ignore the needs of the real world as we live in it today and instead focus on the way things were 200 years ago.
For example, there are 350,000,000 people in the US in 2013. When the first Census was taken in 1790 there were 3,929,214. (1790 United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) so I guess my real question is do you really believe that the same laws that governed over a country of under 4 million would be relevant to a country of over 350 million?
The same guiding principles that founded this country work. of course laws will change over time. but the guiding principles matter.
The guidng principle that this thread deals with is that the right to self protection and thus to firearms predates the founding of this nation, and therefore should not be abridged by the government.
There's a stark difference between making subtle changes that facilitate an overall improvement and making fundamental changes that completely redefine a system.
Like Lincoln and the 13th amendment? That was quite subtle what he did. No wonder everyone thinks he's the worst president ever right? Just like the founding fathers said, "why change when we can just be British forever and ever?"
hey, guess what? since the expiration of the assault weapons ban, gun violence in the US has fallen. at the same time, Americans have purchased tens of millions of firearms many of which were the same weapons banned by the assault weapons ban.
The same guiding principles that founded this country work. of course laws will change over time. but the guiding principles matter.
The guidng principle that this thread deals with is that the right to self protection and thus to firearms predates the founding of this nation, and therefore should not be abridged by the government.
Has anyone suggested, seriously suggested, that people should not have the right to self protection?
No matter what the hyperbole of the day is "Stricter gun laws" does not equate to "tyrants are taking our guns"
And it's all fine and great if the number of gun crimes have gone down. That really is, and it's a great argument to make and one that should be taken seriously. The same way that the facts that there are still 30,000 gun related deaths in this country every year AND we are still just a few months passed the tragedy of Newtown, should be taken seriously as well. A lot of hard decisions, and yes some changes need to happen. But if we can't get past the "They are coming to take our guns" vs "Guns will kill us all" hyperbole then we're not going to get anywhere.
I just love this. Without even looking at posters names when clicking, I've tried to rep you twice in this thread, but it says I gotta spread the love around first.
Yes, many murders are commited with guns, over 2/3. Nobody is debating those numbers.
So you don't care about the last 1/3. Do you supose that if there were no guns available, that the murderer would find another tool of death?
I suppose some would but many wouldn't. It's hard to kill people without a gun. Especially lots of people at once. Hard to have a drive by knife throwing or to kill an innocent bystander without a gun. How many innocent bystanders are killed without guns in this country? Probably almost none. I understand your premise but guns are built to make killing things, many things, as easy as possible. I'm not saying they don't have a place but I am saying that they shouldn't have even more places and there should be restrictions just like all the amendments to our constitution have. I never hear any conservative saying that the other amendments are completely unrestricted. And yet many would love to waterboard or stop people without just cause which are in violation of the other amendments. Why do you think that most conservatives hate the ACLU. You'd think they'd be all over civil liberties.
By the way, you ever wonder why almost nobody dies on airplanes from guns even though millions of people fly every year? Simple, guns are not allowed on planes. But according to your logic there should be tons of gun deaths on planes.
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.
