The U.S. is a prison happy, gun happy and religion happy country (Canada, military)
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.
I think acknowledging your own country's problems is a sign of an open mind and one not clouded by blind nationalism and the thinking that your country is the best at everything. I think this attitude is why I can't stand Fox News which I call "The Republican, Christian news station" and one that I believe to be notorious for being light on facts and steeped in this idea of the U.S. being God's country. I think the U.S. does a great deal of many things right but I also see it's shortcomings.
I also think far too many Americans do not look or try to understand news outside of the States and how others perceive us, what I like to call an insular attitude. Some have said on this thread that I would be happier elsewhere and perhaps they are right but I don't see why one should not be open to hearing how other people around the world view us and given the number of people who have responded to this post, I think I have struck a nerve.
I think acknowledging your own country's problems is a sign of an open mind and one not clouded by blind nationalism and the thinking that your country is the best at everything. I think this attitude is why I can't stand Fox News which I call "The Republican, Christian news station" and one that I believe to be notorious for being light on facts and steeped in this idea of the U.S. being God's country. I think the U.S. does a great deal of many things right but I also see it's shortcomings.
I also think far too many Americans do not look or try to understand news outside of the States and how others perceive us, what I like to call an insular attitude. Some have said on this thread that I would be happier elsewhere and perhaps they are right but I don't see why one should not be open to hearing how other people around the world view us and given the number of people who have responded to this post, I think I have struck a nerve.
Here's where I take issue, it's not with the idea of what the rest of the world thinks about us but where you draw what "they think" from.
I make a point to talk to as many foreigners as I can and I've yet to hear the opinions you espouse. In fact I had the pleasure of interacting with a Danish exchange student at a friends house for the last year and these subjects came up.
We discussed the differences between a socialist country vs the U.S. and we realized that both had their positives/negatives but in the end they were just different from each other and what "we" as citizens were used to.
She loved some of the things here and some she didn't understand. Not surprising or negative.
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.
Yup, because the had no knowledge of the past at all did they? What they wanted was to make sure that the citizenry was always on an equal footing with any other government when it came to arms.
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?
I agree, but not in all cases. A pilots manual today, is much different that one in the 1920's for example.
The 2nd amendment was written when gun technology was much different.
However even with modern gun technology, the government has bigger guns etc. The idea that people can keep government in check by having mediocre weaponry when compared to those bigger guns is not really realistic.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
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.
I haven't been back to this thread for a while, so this response is a bit delayed. I am guessing you did not read my post very carefully, if at all. Nowhere did I discuss, propose, or imply that I am thinking of "overthrowing the government." I did discuss that it (the 2nd Amendment) does give people a defense from government overreach, and if you don't think an armed citizenry figures into the legal calculus of our Federal government, you aren't watching very closely.
I am OK with a government afraid of the people, I am concerned when the people are afraid of the government.
As an aside, I am far more concerned about the sell out bought and paid for by Soros than Koch, but agree that any representative bought and paid for from any source is one to be concerned about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
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.
This really sums up my position on the topic - thanks for the assist Marc Paolella!
Limited Power = Limited Corruption.
Yup, because the had no knowledge of the past at all did they? What they wanted was to make sure that the citizenry was always on an equal footing with any other government when it came to arms.
Your gun is no match for US government forces in the 21st century. You wouldn't stand a chance. It's no longer equal, or possible to be equal.
Only an idiot would tell someone they disagree with "move to another country". The whole idea of a free country is to have the freedom to try and change things you believe must be changed.
But why is the opinion of people living in other countries, most of whom had never been to the US, so important ? Interesting, maybe; perhaps helpful, sometimes; not super important, sorry.
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.