So, Obama is not after our guns?

[CRUE CAB]

It's more like the konservative pols kinked down the demand side, by taking all our money away to start stupid wars, because all the right wing voters keep getting suckered in w/the Bible-gun talk and voted for them.

(shakes head) What?

 

[AngryOldGuy]

taking all our money away to start stupid wars

personally I'm quite miffed about that, if you give freeloaders over a trillion dollars a year through medicare/medicaid unemployment insurance food stamps and a whole host of alphabet soup giveaway programs (LIHEAP)
of course you'd not expect a return on investment But when we blow 800+ billion dollars on defence that should be more than enough to have conquered the whole planet by now?

 

[Wiseone]

The "arms" in the second amendment are supposed to take away the government's power to regulate such. As in when the government tries to make and enforce such a restriction, they get shot and killed by citizens.

But the people don't care. By allowing gun control supporters to live we are making the choice to surender our right to arms. I think this is a result of losing the civil war, and since very few desire another civil war, the big-government Union will have its way sooner or later.

We should enjoy our toys while we still have them, we won't have them for much longer.

You aren't seriously suggesting we should kill people over the current state of gun control laws in this country? Let it put it another way, do you think its worth killing people to end the embargo against Iran or at least add a loophole for guns? You can't purchase an Iranian firearm for example.

No where in the history of the US Court system or any of the writings of the Founding Fathers will you find anyone saying that the 2A prevents the government from regulating trade as it is clearly able to do so via the Constitution. Why do you think that is the case then?

 

[CRUE CAB]

You aren't seriously suggesting we should kill people over the current state of gun control laws in this country? Let it put it another way, do you think its worth killing people to end the embargo against Iran or at least add a loophole for guns? You can't purchase an Iranian firearm for example.

No where in the history of the US Court system or any of the writings of the Founding Fathers will you find anyone saying that the 2A prevents the government from regulating trade as it is clearly able to do so via the Constitution. Why do you think that is the case then?

I dont think any one is argueing whether Obama has a right to do this EO or is it legal or does the Constitution allow or disallow it.
Its the fact that he did it at all is the issue.
Why? What is the point and why lie about the reasons.
Crime? Na, not a reason. He has yet to offer a crime bill.
The reason is clear, to save face after his epic defeat this year about the Gun Bill that failed miserably.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

 

[CRUE CAB]

Hitler?

 

[AngryOldGuy]

it's only a matter of time before
they're back

national gun or owner registration is inevitable
resistance is futile

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Hitler?

And when Hitler did that, Germany was ALREADY a totalitarian state.

Speaking of which, why don't we look at all these terrrrrible tyrannies that ALREADY have total registration of firearms:

England
Israel
Switzerland
Germany
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
France
Spain
Italy
Norway
Sweden
Iceland
...

Yep, these are all really tyrannical nations, huh?

 

[CRUE CAB]

And when Hitler did that, Germany was ALREADY a totalitarian state.

Speaking of which, why don't we look at all these terrrrrible tyrannies that ALREADY have total registration of firearms:

England
Israel
Switzerland
Germany
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
France
Spain
Italy
Norway
Sweden
Iceland
...

Yep, these are all really tyrannical nations, huh?

I dont know, but I also know I dont care how or what they do in their countries. And a number of the countries you listed have a total ban on firearms.

 

[Goshin]

And when Hitler did that, Germany was ALREADY a totalitarian state.

Speaking of which, why don't we look at all these terrrrrible tyrannies that ALREADY have total registration of firearms:

England
Israel
Switzerland
Germany
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
France
Spain
Italy
Norway
Sweden
Iceland
...

Yep, these are all really tyrannical nations, huh?

Most of those countries are places I would not want to live, too. Not simply because of their gun registration or gun laws; because many of them (not all, but many) have governments that are potentially unlimited in size, scope and intrusiveness except by populism.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

those countries are places I would not want to live

translation: they are bloody socialist paradis

 

[Goshin]

translation: they are bloody socialist paradis

Some of them are ok, but some are definite Nanny States... places where there are sincere and impassioned arguments about whether people ought to be allowed to possess long kitchen knives with points, of all things.

I'd prefer not to live anywhere that the concept of limited government isn't even on the radar.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

isn't even on the radar

hah yeah you couldn't even get a look at it using the Hubble Space Telescope!

 

[CRUE CAB]

translation: they are bloody socialist paradis

Mate!

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I dont know, but I also know I dont care how or what they do in their countries. And a number of the countries you listed have a total ban on firearms.

And that's why you're a conservative - you don't know why it's important to know what they do in other nations, why they do it, and how successful they are or aren't as a result. All you know or care about is what's in front of your face, and you really don't care about faraway countries with people of whom you know nothing.

And btw - which countries in the list have a total ban on firearms? Hm?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Some of them are ok, but some are definite Nanny States... places where there are sincere and impassioned arguments about whether people ought to be allowed to possess long kitchen knives with points, of all things.

I'd prefer not to live anywhere that the concept of limited government isn't even on the radar.

So...can you give me an example of a nation today that has the kind of 'limited government' you want?

 

[AngryOldGuy]

nope!

 

[Goshin]

And that's why you're a conservative - you don't know why it's important to know what they do in other nations, why they do it, and how successful they are or aren't as a result. All you know or care about is what's in front of your face, and you really don't care about faraway countries with people of whom you know nothing.

And btw - which countries in the list have a total ban on firearms? Hm?

I've engaged in studies of other nation's gun laws, gun ownership rates, and rates of murder and other violent crime.

My conclusion, which I can (and have) posted with sourced stats and figures, is that gun laws and rates of private gun ownership seem to have very little if any effect on murder rates, or violent crime in general.

The things which nations with high murder rates seem to have in common are the following:

1. Bad or corrupt or ineffective gov't/law/enforcement.
2. Poverty, extreme wealth inequality.
3. Factions, whether tribal or gangs or ethnic.
4. Illegal drug trade.


Culture is also a factor. Canadians, for instance, have a rate of private firearm ownership MANY times higher than Britain, but a murder rate that is hardly any higher. Culturally, it seems that Canadians are simply less disposed to murdering one another than is the case in many other nations.

Contrariwise, many nations with ludicrously high murder rates, as much as eight times as high as the US rate, have only a tiny fraction of the USA's gun ownership rate... but they have the four factors I enumerated above in plentiful quantity.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

nope!

But you'd find plenty of such nations in the past, right?

 

[Goshin]

So...can you give me an example of a nation today that has the kind of 'limited government' you want?

In all honesty, no. The US at least has enshrined the concept, even if in recent decades the application has been woefully lacking.


But at least we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that we can point to when gov't exceeds its bounds... and once in a while we even win.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I've engaged in studies of other nation's gun laws, gun ownership rates, and rates of murder and other violent crime.

My conclusion, which I can (and have) posted with sourced stats and figures, is that gun laws and rates of private gun ownership seem to have very little if any effect on murder rates, or violent crime in general.

The things which nations with high murder rates seem to have in common are the following:

1. Bad or corrupt or ineffective gov't/law/enforcement.
2. Poverty, extreme wealth inequality.
3. Factions, whether tribal or gangs or ethnic.
4. Illegal drug trade.


Culture is also a factor. Canadians, for instance, have a rate of private firearm ownership MANY times higher than Britain, but a murder rate that is hardly any higher. Culturally, it seems that Canadians are simply less disposed to murdering one another than is the case in many other nations.

Contrariwise, many nations with ludicrously high murder rates, as much as eight times as high as the US rate, have only a tiny fraction of the USA's gun ownership rate... but they have the four factors I enumerated above in plentiful quantity.

I grew up in Mississippi, and I sometimes live in Manila, Philippines. Manila is a single city with something like five times the total population of my home state of Mississippi, grinding poverty like nothing we've seen in America since the Depression, rampant drug trade, and governmental corruption that would make Boss Tweed blush. But even though one would think this combination of overpopulation and poverty and corruption would be toxic enough lead to high levels of violence and homicide, Manila has a lower homicide rate than Mississippi. But then, Mississippi - which, for all its problems, has LESS corrupt and ineffective government than Manila, LESS extreme poverty, FEWER gangs and factions, and MUCH less drug trade than Manila - has a far, far higher rate of gun ownership.

What you left out in your list above is the degree to which gun ownership is regulated. Two nations may have significantly different gun ownership rates, but if they both regulate those guns to the same degree, you may still get similar homicide rates. You compared Canada to England. Most people in highly-urbanized England see no need for gun ownership, and so the gun ownership is less. Canada's gun laws - while significantly less restrictive than those in England - are still much more restrictive than in red-state America, since Canada requires universal background checks and registration of all firearms - and assault weapons are illegal there IIRC. But Canada has a much higher gun ownership rate than England because England is highly urbanized, whereas Canada is one of the two most rural first-world nations on the planet - and having grown up in Mississippi, I have a real appreciation of the need - need! - for firearms in rural areas. But since Canada DOES require background checks and registration and restricts firearms that have no place outside the military - and their conservatives aren't filled with fear that the guv'mint's a-sendin' those black helicopters to come confiscate their guns - their rate is roughly equal to England's.

Y'know, I just realized that the city of Metro Manila itself has over half - and perhaps two-thirds - the entire population of Canada? Man....

 

[Glen Contrarian]

In all honesty, no. The US at least has enshrined the concept, even if in recent decades the application has been woefully lacking.


But at least we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that we can point to when gov't exceeds its bounds... and once in a while we even win.

So I'll ask you what I asked AOG - you can find plenty of examples of such nations in the past, right?

 

[Goshin]

I grew up in Mississippi, and I sometimes live in Manila, Philippines. Manila is a single city with something like five times the total population of my home state of Mississippi, grinding poverty like nothing we've seen in America since the Depression, rampant drug trade, and governmental corruption that would make Boss Tweed blush. But even though one would think this combination of overpopulation and poverty and corruption would be toxic enough lead to high levels of violence and homicide, Manila has a lower homicide rate than Mississippi. But then, Mississippi - which, for all its problems, has LESS corrupt and ineffective government than Manila, LESS extreme poverty, FEWER gangs and factions, and MUCH less drug trade than Manila - has a far, far higher rate of gun ownership.

What you left out in your list above is the degree to which gun ownership is regulated. Two nations may have significantly different gun ownership rates, but if they both regulate those guns to the same degree, you may still get similar homicide rates. You compared Canada to England. Most people in highly-urbanized England see no need for gun ownership, and so the gun ownership is less. Canada's gun laws - while significantly less restrictive than those in England - are still much more restrictive than in red-state America, since Canada requires universal background checks and registration of all firearms - and assault weapons are illegal there IIRC. But Canada has a much higher gun ownership rate than England because England is highly urbanized, whereas Canada is one of the two most rural first-world nations on the planet - and having grown up in Mississippi, I have a real appreciation of the need - need! - for firearms in rural areas. But since Canada DOES require background checks and registration and restricts firearms that have no place outside the military - and their conservatives aren't filled with fear that the guv'mint's a-sendin' those black helicopters to come confiscate their guns - their rate is roughly equal to England's.

Y'know, I just realized that the city of Metro Manila itself has over half - and perhaps two-thirds - the entire population of Canada? Man....

Actually the two do not correlate. Many nations with extremely strict gun control laws still have far higher violent crime than the USA. Mexico, for one example. In Mexico it is almost impossible to legally own a firearm as a private citizen, unless one is very well connected. Yet they have the four keys I mentioned and have enormous amounts of deadly violence.

Culture is also a factor, as well. Some places are more culturally inclined to violence than others, as I noted in the Canada example compared to Britain. Canada has far more guns and considerably less stringent gun laws, but their murder rate is barely any higher.

 

[Goshin]

So I'll ask you what I asked AOG - you can find plenty of examples of such nations in the past, right?

Throughout most of history, most of humanity has lived under one or another version of tyranny, oligarchy or feudalism. Such governments varied in character from relatively benevolent to highly oppressive, depending on your social/economic status and who was king.

It is only in recent centuries that the concept of the rights of the common man have become a major factor in governance.


How exactly are you deeming this relevant?

 

[CRUE CAB]

And that's why you're a conservative - you don't know why it's important to know what they do in other nations, why they do it, and how successful they are or aren't as a result. All you know or care about is what's in front of your face, and you really don't care about faraway countries with people of whom you know nothing.

And btw - which countries in the list have a total ban on firearms? Hm?

BTW, I dont care. But I know we have the 2A and are a more successful nation than all those others.
I am a conservative because the conservatives are who I relate to more so than the rights restricting liberals out there.