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.
It doesn't really make sense to say "hey, if we get rid of all the ghettos, the US is a pretty safe place!". It isn't something that can be omitted.
No, of course not. But the poster I've replied to seem to believe that "Americans love violence" while most of that violence is perpetrated by a very small, well defined part of the population. The majority of Americans are law abiding people.
Here's one of the basic problems: guns are easily available to almost any non-felon (well, felons can certainly get them too). How are you suddenly going to take them away from most Americans? By passing a few laws? People aren't just going to willing give up their guns. Most would keep them and just hide them.
The other reality is that even if people did abide by a new gun law(s), it would be the decent citizens that aren't really a threat that would willingly give up whatever weapons are banned. The truly dangerous people/the street-smart criminals aren't going to care a bit about the law, as their entire life has been lived outside the boundaries of law and order. They would continue to buy guns off the black market, carry them and use them in criminal activities. They would probably love it, as it would create a large black market with which they could make money.
I think what most don't get, and I'm one of them, is equating guns and freedom. It's a fairly American viewpoint.
...and before you mention the 2nd Amendment, I'll say the other thing we don't get, is how is an amendment, based on a technology, that was written over 200 years ago,is applicable today?
Those writing the amendment, in my opinion, would be very surprised to see the status of guns today in the US, let alone the violence.
Government at its root is force. Criminality at its root is force. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to establish the right of the citizen to repel those two sources of force (with focus on the government or a competing government/invasion force), and provide the citizen with a legitimate means of self defense (it really wasn't about deer hunting!).
Bottom line, the 2nd Amendment is really about maintaining independence and liberty for a free people, guns are the means, not the purpose.
The founders would probably be appalled by the limits on gun ownership and rights, but the Progressives (T.R., Theodore Roosevelt, and Wilson) would likely be just as appalled that there weren't more limits on gun ownership and rights. One group trusted government and government power, the other group decidedly did not!
Also, because something is old, does not mean it is not valid or no longer useful. Do we no longer use aqueducts to move water simply because aqueducts were developed en masse during the Roman civilization more than a thousand years ago, and are outdated because we have developed pipelines and pumps?
No it wasn't. The United States was intended to be secular. The US does not even have a state religion.
I don't think you know what a theory is. A scientific theory is a fact. You are thinking of a hypothesis most likely.
Billions of people do, and subconsciously everyone knows evolution is real. People who think evolution is not real typically do not understand what evolution is. Based on how you do not know what a theory is, you are probably under that category.
By your logic Conspiracy Theory is actually Conspiracy Fact. I like that and second it.
Government at its root is force. Criminality at its root is force. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to establish the right of the citizen to repel those two sources of force (with focus on the government or a competing government/invasion force), and provide the citizen with a legitimate means of self defense (it really wasn't about deer hunting!).
Bottom line, the 2nd Amendment is really about maintaining independence and liberty for a free people, guns are the means, not the purpose.
The founders would probably be appalled by the limits on gun ownership and rights, but the Progressives (T.R., Theodore Roosevelt, and Wilson) would likely be just as appalled that there weren't more limits on gun ownership and rights. One group trusted government and government power, the other group decidedly did not!
Also, because something is old, does not mean it is not valid or no longer useful. Do we no longer use aqueducts to move water simply because aqueducts were developed en masse during the Roman civilization more than a thousand years ago, and are outdated because we have developed pipelines and pumps?
As for "overthrowing the government" with a bunch of guns, that's nothing but delusional thinking at this point. Unless you're going to buy yourself a 1st world army - and the training and logistics to go with it - you're not overthrowing anything.
I'm danged tired of people pretending "the government" is some far-off power that is beyond influence other than somehow shooting it. The government is composed of people, nothing more. If you want to "fix" the government or get a better one, try electing people who aren't total sell-outs. Stop supporting corporate tools bought off with Koch money. Heck, even if that plan is unlikely to succeed, it's far more believable than hording guns for the "day of killing, when duh people will rize up and take back what's ars!!" or some drek.
Armed revolution is nothing but a delusion at this point caused by people who just want an excuse to not pay taxes and kill off the people they don't like. Even if they got their insane wish, you'd end up with nothing but hate-filled, genocidal warlords running things since not ONE person who screams about the "need to revolt" has come up with a better system of governance than "let everyone do what they want and stop making us pay taxes." Anyone who wants that is free to move to countless strife-riddled 3rd world nations, where they can get all the guns and lack of government and infrastructure they want.
As for "overthrowing the government" with a bunch of guns, that's nothing but delusional thinking at this point. Unless you're going to buy yourself a 1st world army - and the training and logistics to go with it - you're not overthrowing anything.
I'm danged tired of people pretending "the government" is some far-off power that is beyond influence other than somehow shooting it. The government is composed of people, nothing more. If you want to "fix" the government or get a better one, try electing people who aren't total sell-outs. Stop supporting corporate tools bought off with Koch money. Heck, even if that plan is unlikely to succeed, it's far more believable than hording guns for the "day of killing, when duh people will rize up and take back what's ars!!" or some drek.
Armed revolution is nothing but a delusion at this point caused by people who just want an excuse to not pay taxes and kill off the people they don't like. Even if they got their insane wish, you'd end up with nothing but hate-filled, genocidal warlords running things since not ONE person who screams about the "need to revolt" has come up with a better system of governance than "let everyone do what they want and stop making us pay taxes." Anyone who wants that is free to move to countless strife-riddled 3rd world nations, where they can get all the guns and lack of government and infrastructure they want.
This is nonsense. Rational and free people acknowledge the need for government, but with limited and scope and a very limited purpose. To settle disputes with a court system and defend us from criminals. And to defend us from external enemies by building the largest and most powerful military in the world, along with whatever weapons are necessary to annihilate everyone as a deterrent.
What was not authorized was a government that steals from Peter to give to Paul. And that's what we have. If the government was of proper size and scope, there would be little or no political corruption because there would be nothing to corrupt.
What does prison happy mean, if you mean we have more criminals in the our country and more than any other country but Russia then yes. I do agree we need more rehabilitation centers for substance abusers instead of send them to prison but do you want their taxes raised for that?
What does prison happy mean, if you mean we have more criminals in the our country and more than any other country but Russia then yes. I do agree we need more rehabilitation centers for substance abusers instead of send them to prison but do you want their taxes raised for that?
How true.
For all the things that people demand we ought to do, ought to have (better quality officers, more training, etc), one must realize it costs money......and that money has to come from somewhere.
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.
