If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
i really dont like posting on this topic, as when i do, nobody actually seems to think about i say (probably because its 90% crap), they just see a slight discrepancy, and start sounding off about it. not that i care, as i do think i'm right anyway. but here goes, one more post (and it'll probably be quite long, you know how i like to ramble) so if you're gonna get bored, just read the bit at the end (thats what most people seem to do anyway)
just a few additionals though:
the founding fathers - they're no God, right? so, why does everybody assume them to have been imbued with the power of always being right? same goes for everyone really.
for another thing - Washington et al, and the founding fathers and all, were they not originally british by birth?! no, i'm not using that as an insult, i'm just proud to say that my nation could have spawned the concepts that led to modern democracy - so what if it meant the US ended up independent, makes no difference to me.
a rather simple point - why do you think that britain does not know what freedom and liberty is? surely, our electoral system is democratic, perhaps to a greater extent than that of the US (who are we to judge?). britain has kind of made a habit of sacrificing people in defence of liberty, so why would we do it if we didnt know what it was.
and another thing - where, all of a sudden, did all this talk of the US bursting in to civil war come from? if the president is supreme commander of the US army, it would take one helluva big step to bypass democracy entirely, and mobilise the armed forces against all 257 million (ish) US citizens, who should have (in some part at least) elected the aforementioned C-in-C. governments in most modern nations are nowadays overthrown in a relatively peaceful fashion - the USSR and Eastern Europe, or the evolution of hcinese communism in to a more market-orientated society, for instance (no, i'm not saying that chinese communism is good, i'm just syaing its a darn site better than it was). so why all this talk of massed armies, government versus people.
if i remember correctly, some chap called lincoln made a rather famous speech a fair time back, concluding that;
'government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this earth.'
now, if you ask me, thats more or less concrete proof (or as near as you can get - after all, he might be wrong <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"> ) of the fact that the US govt exists because its citizens wish it to, and works in their interests, not as a 'self-preserving bureaucracy' as someone mentioned earlier (i forget who, and i forget the quote, but who cares).
what i'm trying to say (took me long enough to work it out myself) is that a lot of the americans arguing on this topic really ARE performing an orwellian miracle. the number of quotes i have read, which rely on the truth and honesty of the founding fathers, washington, jefferson, and a dozen others is quite encouraging. but what is not, is that the very same people who seem to say 'look at our democracy, innit great!', actually distrust that democracy to such an extent that they would actively take up arms against it. this worries me deeply, because i think of all the billions of people who have no democracy, let alone one to distrust.
make the most of what you have, start believing in it, stop trying to highlight its inadequacies, and start to support it. by 'it' i dont mean the government, or even the institutes of democracy. i mean democracy itself - the ideal, the dream which could someday be truly realised. stop bitching, and listen to what the man (mr lincoln this time) says. or else before you know it it'll have been wasted.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
I pledge alleg to the flag of the USA, and to the republic...(sorry in a rush).
Anyway look it up there is a differance.
Most folks in America do not.
What is the problem?
Can poorly armed people oppose the American military. I don't know maybe you should speak to Nyugen Giap. As regards large armies....speak to the Mujahadeen who threw the Russians out of Afghanistan...
It is simple...you can't rule a people who don't want to be ruled.
I take my hat off to you, and give you a deep bow! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
quote:from 63DH8
<Just a heads-up, I’m an American;>
Didn't sound like it.
< A US Citizen..... You really wouldn’t want to be jap-slapped by a 6 foot, 220lb Dane.>
I'm 180 Lbs, 5'4", with a size 40 jacket, and no fat. My freinds refer to me as "The Brick". My grandfather was a 6ft, 210 Lb Dane.
<Your point is taken.>
Hope so.
<WE, the US,EARNED our freedom. WE fought for it. Just like people will not always take your advice, no matter how valuable it is, it is still your advice based on your experience. Americans tend to be faster on the draw than people in other countries.>
I'd say we have more restraint than many... What about the Hostage Crisis in '79?
444 days we held back, didn't we? The Israeli's would have started assasinating suspected Iranian collaborators in a few weeks.
<About the only other people I have seen who are as quick are people from countries that also had to fight for their freedoms.>
All people fight the government for their freedom.
<Sometimes it’s better to have an injured friend than be dead yourself. Let’s face it, the US has a violent history that’s closer to present history than most First World Nations.>
Yea? The French were in Cambodia just before we went into Vietnam, The English fought over the Faulklands, and continue to occupy Northern Ireland with machine guns and armored personel carriers.
<It’s still in our blood.>
I think you're buying into the European propaganda. FReedom is in our blood, but we have no monopoly on violence.
<There are societies that trust their Government...You’re not going to change their viewpoints by force just by their very nature.> Huh? I'm going to change some of them because I am RIGHT, and there must be a few that can recognize the truth when it hits them in the head.
<It’s best that they experience what they must to follow their due course.>
Best for who? I think it's better if they learn from past mistakes rather than repeating them... OVER AND OVER.
Remember, they already fought a war against their subjects who wanted to be free.
<Until then, you’ll be looked upon as a lunatic.> I think I'd rather.
<Besides, there is nothing more cherished than what is earned. Maybe this is why the Average US citizen cherishes his ability to defend himself and his family from others, to include the Government.>
I doon't know about you, but I inherited my freedom. I didn't "earn it". I cherish it because it is precious and therefore I am vigilant not to let go of it.
<I DO have access to firearms...
As for the British and other countries, the people trust their Government enough where they were willing to give up their rights to ownership of arms. Is it right or wrong?>
Completely f*cking wrong.
<Only time will tell. Historically, societies that give up the right to defend themselves with arms end up getting oppressed. Only history will tell if this will hold true for them too.>
The are already oppressed. Every time someone could have defended themselves, but dies instead, they are a victim of oppression, as well as of the crime.
<Quick! What’s the cover of the engine on a car called? Not the same as the US, eh? Not quite the same culture Amigo!>
It's called a manifold, and what do you think it's called in England? A manifold.
Besides, even if it wasn't, the U.S. has different dialects, for example a Sandwich made of Italian bread in New York is called a "Hero", but down south, it's called a "Submarine" or a "Hogie", same culture, different slang.
< Even in the US, there are different culture!>
More of that "Multi-Culturalist" nonsense? There is only one English Speaking culture. Everything else is a "Sub-Culture"
<In the state I live...there are different cultures...>
Only different subcultures.
<The largest difference (between the different cultures across the world) is the US culture was founded by the overthrow of what the Founding Fathers considered a tyrannical rule. We were founded by the force of arms, and continue to live with the force of arms in the citizen’s hand.
The British were not founded this way. They were founded by the protection of the Kings, Barons, and knights.>
Really? And how did the Kings Barons and Knights found anything or "protect" anyone, if it was not through the use of arms?
<That, in itself, produces a different culture.>
I think not.
<Why was the Declaration of Independence written in the first place? Because the Founding Fathers wanted to break away from England.>
You are talking about why it was written, I was reffering to what it says. It explains quite clearly what the country stands for, as well as the cause which motivated the founders to express these perenial truths.
<Read the Federalist Papers. These were written before the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I’ve not only read the Declaration of Independence, but studied the history of it.>
Well, you may need to brush up, as the Federalist papers were "written and published during the years 1787 and 1788(Eleven years after the Declaration of Independance 1776) in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution" (which by the way was ratified in 1789.) http://www.mcs.net/~knautzr/fed/fedpaper.html
<In other societies, this distrust of the Government may result in actions that may result in anarchy.>
quote:
Originally posted by Doubro:
Never. A healthy distrust of government is why you have periodic elections. Even in England they have regular elections don't they?
<Good example is every violent overthrow of a Government. Elections are peaceful overthrow of the Government.>
I don't care if it's peaceful or not, the point WAS that it was statutory and periodic. A shining example that people know NOT to trust their government.
<What happens if the Government refuses to have elections?>
Then the Shiznat hit's the Fan.
previously posted <The government has no right to suppress honest disent. What kind of bullshit euphemism is that? You mean arrest, detain, silence, don't you?>
<Yes, that is exactly what I mean. On the other hand, they Government may bend to the will of the people to prevent being overthrown through vote or violence. This happens in the US quite often (bend to the will of the people).>
Gee, in the U.S. we have guns don't we?
<Most people consider Germans "free" in their Country. Did you know they must apply to move from one town to another town or city, then, if that application is accepted, they have to register in their new town, and unregister in their old town? Not exactly what a US citizen would consider "free", is it? That’s the norm for them. It’s a degree of freedom they’ll tolerate, or lack of.>
People will tolerate a lot more then they deserve to. But just because they live under oppression, that does not make it "Right ofr them", that's double talk and bullshit.
<There is a difference between saying what is wrong, and what is wrong for you or a group of people.>
No, there is NO DIFFERENCE. What is WRONG ... IS WRONG FOR YOU, IS WRONG FOR ME , and WRONG for all GROUPS of people.
quote:
Originally posted by Doubro:
The only person you have a right to deny a gun to is YOURSELF.
Yes, and the BATF if they can find an excuse. If you have a domestic violence charge against you, you can’t legally purchase a firearm.>
Check the recent precedent established in US vs. Emerson. Sam Cumming, a Judge in the 5th district court of appeals says you cannot be denied your 2nd Amendment rights based on a domestic violence charge. At least this is how the case is going so far. The anti-gunners might go to the USSC with the case, stay tuned.
<As for myself denying anyone firearms, nope. Not me! More the merrier! >
It's not how many guns, It's how many times the trigger is pulled.
<Defend yourself with deadly force in some countries will result in getting tossed in jail. I was almost jailed in British Columbia for stopping a jewelry robber in the Surrey Mall. I was told I was going to be brought up on assault charges for physically stopping a man from breaking into a jewelry case and stealing the jewelry in that case. Unless I want to be brought on charges, I have to stay out of Surrey, BC.>
Well, aint that the dumbest shit I ever heard. And you think that such a "Culture" is right? Or are they perhaps WRONG, and you should have been lauded rather than ostracized or arrested?
<I’m not speaking for every Brit. I’m talking about them as a society because, as a society, they passed a law to restrict firearms ownership.>
But, "As a society" they have no right to limit the inalianable RIGHTS of individuals. Part of the responsibility that "Society" has... is to protect these individual rights.
<You’re right! I know I love my family enough where I wouldn’t think twice about using deadly force to protect them....However, the British, as a society, do not feel the same way as you and I. Listen to their rhetoric; They will state that is for purpose for the police. It’s their reality. >
It's their mistake. We can all make mistakes. I felt comfortable at one time, when I myself hated guns and was ignorant about them... that was my mistake. The British make the same mistake I did. Nothing amazing or culture specific about that...
People who don't know about guns, or have never used them, are going to associate them with bad things. In a peace time culture it is hard to impress upon the uninitiated the utter virtue it is to be intereted in Slef defence, and in the venerable history of gun ownership both HERE and IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
<i really dont like posting on this topic, as when i do, nobody actually seems to think about i say (probably because its 90% crap)>
No argument here.
<just a few additionals though:
the founding fathers - they're no God, right? so, why does everybody assume them to have been imbued with the power of always being right? same goes for everyone really.>
We just marvel at their profound eloquence.
<for another thing - Washington et al, and the founding fathers and all, were they not originally british by birth?!>
Yes, that's why I say we ARE the SAME CULTURE. We grew from the SAME philosophical roots.
<why do you think that britain does not know what freedom and liberty is? surely, our electoral system is democratic, perhaps to a greater extent than that of the US (who are we to judge?).>
What is this constant referal to "Democracy" with the Brits all the time. It's as if they think somewhere, someone actually lives in a Democracy. You Brits live in a "Parlimentary Monarchy" You have representatives "House of Commons", much like our little Republic... a "House of Lords", and a "Queen in Parliment" A true democracy, would simply be a system of referendum, which neither your government nor mine would ever allow.
<britain has kind of made a habit of sacrificing people in defence of liberty, so why would we do it if we didnt know what it was.>
Sure, defending a type of "Liberty" from a form facism. Although, it could be argued that it was simply a sort of organizational self preservation. A softer more acceptable version of oppression defending itself by comparision against a harder foreign one.
<and another thing - where, all of a sudden, did all this talk of the US bursting in to civil war come from?>
The War of Northern agression (Misnamed the Civil war)was the turning point in our history where our States Rights were weakened in the name of Abolition and the modern fight against the overly strong Federalised central government began.
<if the president is supreme commander of the US army, it would take one helluva big step to bypass democracy entirely, and mobilise the armed forces against all 257 million (ish) US citizens, who should have (in some part at least) elected the aforementioned C-in-C.>
Read the 1934 "War Powers act". All it takes is a signature on an "Executive Order" and the Constitution can legally be suspended.
<governments in most modern nations are nowadays overthrown in a relatively peaceful fashion - the USSR and Eastern Europe, or the evolution of hcinese communism in to a more market-orientated society, for instance (no, i'm not saying that chinese communism is good, i'm just syaing its a darn site better than it was).>
Uh huh,
<so why all this talk of massed armies, government versus people.>
Those are just hypotheticals.
<if i remember correctly, some chap called lincoln made a rather famous speech a fair time back, concluding that;
'government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this earth.'>
He suspended the Constitutional rights of the Prisoners of War, holding them without producing the body (Habeus Corpus)of evidence against them. He was simply attempting to keep power. Keep the Union together. He was President of the "United States", if the South had been allowed to legally cesseed. He would have been seen as a failure. So, he ignored the laws of the country in order to preserve the union, under force, and at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
<now, if you ask me, thats more or less concrete proof (or as near as you can get - after all, he might be wrong <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"> ) of the fact that the US govt exists because its citizens wish it to, and works in their interests, not as a 'self-preserving bureaucracy' as someone mentioned earlier (i forget who, and i forget the quote, but who cares).>
The government of the people by the people and for the people is one that respects the people's individual rights. When the government becomes overly bureaucratic and centralized...when it overtaxes and under-represents, it is no longer working, and needs to be overhauled if not completely dismantled.
<what i'm trying to say (took me long enough to work it out myself) is that a lot of the americans arguing on this topic really ARE performing an orwellian miracle. the number of quotes i have read, which rely on the truth and honesty of the founding fathers, washington, jefferson, and a dozen others is quite encouraging. but what is not, is that the very same people who seem to say 'look at our democracy, innit great!', actually distrust that democracy to such an extent that they would actively take up arms against it.>
Don't you get it? The GREAT thing about America is that the Government EXPECTS to be held accountable by it citizens!!! The Founders frequnetly spoke of their mistrust of organized, centralized power, and tried as best they could to decentralize power and control. Hence the system of checks and balances... the Electoral college...Arms in the hands of the public....Just in case the government became overbearing and unresponsive.
< this worries me deeply, because i think of all the billions of people who have no democracy, let alone one to distrust.>
Let not your heart be troubled...
there is no such thing as "Democracy".
<make the most of what you have, start believing in it, stop trying to highlight its inadequacies, and start to support it.>
Why do I now picture you in a cheerlaeding uniform? Rah Rah Rah...
<by 'it' i dont mean the government, or even the institutes of democracy. i mean democracy itself - the ideal, the dream which could someday be truly realised.>
Your fantasy of a true Democracy is less desirable as a goal than the reality of representative government with ever vigilant people watching it.
<stop bitching, and listen to what the man (mr lincoln this time) says. or else before you know it it'll have been wasted.>
Lincoln was just another Politian, Loved by some , Hated by others. Remember, we killed him while he was watching a play...
Half the country was defeated by the other half over the arguments of centralized or decentralied power. The same sentiments on both sides still exist, These issues are alive and well 136 years later...even though old "Honest Abe" is rotting in his grave...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,533769,00.html
I'm just wondering why the Brits havin't outlawed smoking, after all, it kills a hell of a lot more people each year than guns do. You are more likely to die from second hand smoke than from getting shot.
Dude, it a dead argument. See earlier posts about cars and swimming pools.
There a many thaings which may cause death but few which are designed with that intention. THAT is the difference.
By the way, haven't some US states banned smoking in some places - you will have to confirm where, but I believe California is one...
This is more logical than a weapons ban. I also think that smoking should be ban in cars when there are children in the vechicle. Smoking is imposing your health risk on others when it's in a public gathering place. Unless you are commiting a crime, weapons are not imposing anything on anyone else. But if weapons are illegal, only criminals will have them, giving the criminals an advantage. ( I know that has already been stated a hundred times, but felt it needed again).
I do understand the logic of a smoking ban (and I'm an ex-smoker!). I also understand the logic put forward arguing the case for free access to guns. But I still hold my belief that you only have those guns because you live in fear, and if you live in fear then you aren't truly free.
I am also surprised that you willing vote in a govt and then fear them. If they are so bad, why vote for them?
There are also cultural differences and regardless of what your countrymen say, we do believe that as a society we are free - even with Royalty - and I know that is something you guys will never understand. But if we didn't feel that way we WOULD revolt - hell we had a civil war before your nation was even founded - just to mainatain certain freedoms from the monarchy.
I don't think that there are anymore arguments that CAN be put forward on this thread and still we differ. Of course I could be wrong, is there anything new you can add?
I think we can all agree that we see eachothers points on this argument and that it has run it's course.
Besides, after 5 pages it gets to frustrating to read up to get into the debate.
I have carried a concealed handgun daily for thirty years. The "fear" that you refer to is the same as what prompts me to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, or a seat belt while driving a car: preparedness should the unthinkable come to pass. Some walk around admiring the clouds in the sky, and some look before they tread lest they step into a pile of dogsh*t. It is NOT fear, but a firm grasp upon reality. To avoid the reality is a delusional existence. To subjugate your life and well being to the nefarious agenda of a miscreant is simply an arrogant foolhardiness that may well eventually reap its just reward...
The ONLY moment in which I feel unease is the moment when I must trust in the goodness of others. FEAR is not part of the equation.
<Just a heads-up, I’m an American;> That’s okay. In real life, most people say I don’t have an accent. Must be all the traveling I did all over the US and the World when my father was in the Navy, and when I traveled while I was in the Army. I won’t hold it against you. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif"> May also be the schools on the military bases. Outstanding education on military bases!
< A US Citizen..... You really wouldn’t want to be jap-slapped by a 6 foot, 220lb Dane.> I gained a little weight since I left the military, but I’m at 5’8", 220lbs. Was weighing in at 180 when I left the Army back in ’91. I used to work on armored vehicles. Got kinda buff from that.
Me:
<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=920218&a=6710867&p=22487651&Sequence=0&res=high">
<Your point is taken.> >shrug<
<WE, the US,EARNED our freedom. WE fought for it. Just like people will not always take your advice, no matter how valuable it is, it is still your advice based on your experience. Americans tend to be faster on the draw than people in other countries.> >SNORT!< That was because we had a limp wristed liberal Democrat for a President! Jimmy Carter was too NICE to be President! He should have done what Reagan did to the Libyans when they bombed that disco with the GIs in it!
While I was in the Gulf, I was in meeting when a British officer informed the group, "We British do not like fighting in or near your area because you tend to shoot at everything that is not your own!" I replied, "Not true sir! We do too shoot up our own, and sometimes even kill them." Even in the old west, we shot at anything that wasn’t supposed to be in a particular area. Sometimes it was our own, sometimes it wasn’t. Most of what I brought back from Iraq was killed by friendly fire.
<About the only other people I have seen who are as quick are people from countries that also had to fight for their freedoms.> The Canadians didn’t. They asked the Crown for their independence and got it. Same with the Australians. I’ll speculate the reason was because the crown didn’t want another revolution like what they did with the US. It’s only speculation though. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">
<Sometimes it’s better to have an injured friend than be dead yourself. Let’s face it, the US has a violent history that’s closer to present history than most First World Nations.>
I’m not sure where you’re going with this. It looks like there’s a misunderstanding or something was taken out of context.
<It’s still in our blood.>
No, we don’t have a monopoly on violence. We do, however, have taken it to a fairly high art. Not too many societies can say they can kill as well as the US military. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif"> The average US citizen is willing to defend their loved one with deadly force.
<There are societies that trust their Government...You’re not going to change their viewpoints by force just by their very nature.>
You are right? That’s a pretty broad blanket statement. Do you have any examples? Just kidding with ya! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif"> Actually, you’ll have your work cut out for you. You see, you’re looking at this through a US perspective, just as the British and others who say the US needs to get rid of their firearms and barbaric ways are looking at the US culture through their cultural eyes. Your viewpoint is right for the US culture. Their viewpoint is right for their culture. The believe the Government is there for their own protection, and the US Citizen believes the Government is a tool of the people that could turn against them.
<It’s best that they experience what they must to follow their due course.> It’s best for them. Nothing is better appreciated than what is earned. Give people what they need, and they’ll not appreciate it as much as if they earned it. It’s like socialism; the people in socialistic nations societies are given their paycheck and/or things they need to survive. I’m sure you have seen them in the US living off the Government dole through welfare. They get their rent for free, food for free, given clothes, ect. How do they treat their living environment? How do they look upon and treat their possessions? Now take a kid who had to work his summer away to buy that old 1970 Chevy truck, and he’ll appreciate it more than the general population who had everything handed to them. Same goes for freedom. What’s earned and fought for is appreciated to a higher degree than what is handed to them on a silver platter. Your mileage will vary.
<Until then, you’ll be looked upon as a lunatic.>
You’re free to do so.
<Besides, there is nothing more cherished than what is earned. Maybe this is why the Average US citizen cherishes his ability to defend himself and his family from others, to include the Government.> You inherited it from people who fought for it. I gave up my Freedoms and Rights when I joined the military. I gave a promise to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I did so to contribute to the Freedoms of the Citizens of the United States. I am now out of the military and have my Freedoms and Rights back, but have not been released from my promise. It’s a promise I took willingly, and I’m not willing to be released from this promise. I took it honorably, and wish to continue keeping it. You are AWARE of what happens if your freedom is taken. You haven’t fallen into complacency like some of the other citizens of the US have become. That is a big difference between people like you and the people in the blue sections of the map below.
<I DO have access to firearms...
As for the British and other countries, the people trust their Government enough where they were willing to give up their rights to ownership of arms. Is it right or wrong?>
It is wrong for you. The considered right enough to vote it away.
<Only time will tell. Historically, societies that give up the right to defend themselves with arms end up getting oppressed. Only history will tell if this will hold true for them too.> They don’t feel that way. I’m hypothesizing, but I’d venture to say they don’t feel oppressed. Is this a case where it’s akin to cooking a frog? You know, where you place a frog in a cold pot of water and slowly turn up the heat until it’s cooked? The frog doesn’t realize it’s getting cooked because the heat is turned up slowly. Maybe the trust they give their Government is warranted. Like I said, only time will tell. Myself, I’d rather be safe than sorry, but I’m not them and they’re not me. Okay, okay, so I said "Only history will tell if this will hold true for them." <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">
<Quick! What’s the cover of the engine on a car called? Not the same as the US, eh? Not quite the same culture Amigo!>
Actually, I was referring to the hood of the car. In England, they call it a bonnet.
< Even in the US, there are different culture!>
Nope! Not multiculturalism I don’t believe in that crap. What I’m saying is the lifestyle of the farmers is a much different lifestyle than a lawyer or a stock broker. If you ever lived in farm country, you’ll see they do live a much different lifestyle than a culture based upon industry. Same goes for people who work the fishing industry and logging industry.
As for as multiculturalism, if you move to the US, learn the language and the way of life. Do not expect the Nation to change to you! Same goes for moving to England, Germany, Russia, or where ever you move to. When I lived in Saudi Arabia, I learned their culture and language. Same for when I lived in Germany.
<In the state I live...there are different cultures...>
So you think the worries of a farmer is the same worries as someone who works in an office? Does a drought mean the same to a lawyer as it does to a farmer or fisherman? Does a change in litigation laws mean anything to a logger? Yes, there are different subcultures, but there are also different cultures. Here’s another example of a different culture in the US. Check out this map:
<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=920218&a=6710863&p=35942086&Sequence=0&res=high">
In this picture, you have a culture (blue) that believes the Government should take care of the people, and a culture (red) that is more self sufficient, who believes in pulling one’s self up by one’s boot strap. I think you’ll recognize colors on the map as the ones voted for Gore (blue) and Bush (red).
<The largest difference (between the different cultures across the world) is the US culture was founded by the overthrow of what the Founding Fathers considered a tyrannical rule. We were founded by the force of arms, and continue to live with the force of arms in the citizen’s hand.
The British were not founded this way. They were founded by the protection of the Kings, Barons, and knights.>
Exactly! The Kings, Knights, and Barons did the protecting! The people didn’t because they depended on the Government (the Kings, Knights, and Barons). This trust in the Government continues in the British culture. In early US history, the Government was considered oppressive.
<That, in itself, produces a different culture.> But it did! This is why the US has a gun culture that looks upon the individual to defend themselves (and distrust the Government), and the British trusts their Government to protect the individual.
[This message has been edited by 63DH8 (edited 10-08-2001).]
Sorry for picking this up in a second post. For some reason, the quote feature in the site program doesn’t pick up after the dashes.
<Why was the Declaration of Independence written in the first place? Because the Founding Fathers wanted to break away from England.>
You are talking about why it was written, I was reffering to what it says. It explains quite clearly what the country stands for, as well as the cause which motivated the founders to express these perenial truths.
<Read the Federalist Papers. These were written before the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I’ve not only read the Declaration of Independence, but studied the history of it.>
The Founding Fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence for the US, not for other Countries. As for the date, I stand corrected. I helped my mother with her citizenship back in the late 60s. It’s been a while, so I hope you’ll excuse me for the laps in memory. The Federalist papers, correct me if I’m wrong, covers the reasons the Founding Fathers wanted a Representative Republic and why they felt this was the best form of Government for the United States.
<In other societies, this distrust of the Government may result in actions that may result in anarchy.>
quote:
Originally posted by Doubro:
Never. A healthy distrust of government is why you have periodic elections. Even in England they have regular elections don't they?
<Good example is every violent overthrow of a Government. Elections are peaceful overthrow of the Government.> Some people vote because "they’re supposed to." They don’t really have a reason. Some vote for more concrete reasons like they like the politician who is in the seat, or because they want someone else in the seat. Next time you vote, ask several people in line why they vote. You’ll leave disgusted!
<What happens if the Government refuses to have elections?> Bingo! In the US, many people will pull their rifles out of the closet. Others will buy bottles and fill them with fuel. I’m at a loss to say what people from other countries will do. Help anyone?
previously posted <The government has no right to suppress honest disent. What kind of bullshit euphemism is that? You mean arrest, detain, silence, don't you?>
<Yes, that is exactly what I mean. On the other hand, they Government may bend to the will of the people to prevent being overthrown through vote or violence. This happens in the US quite often (bend to the will of the people).>
The Government doesn’t have much choice in the matter, does it? <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">
<Most people consider Germans "free" in their Country. Did you know they must apply to move from one town to another town or city, then, if that application is accepted, they have to register in their new town, and unregister in their old town? Not exactly what a US citizen would consider "free", is it? That’s the norm for them. It’s a degree of freedom they’ll tolerate, or lack of.> But they don’t look at as oppression. It’s part of everyday life for them. If they felt it was too oppressive, they can demand the politicians change the laws.
<There is a difference between saying what is wrong, and what is wrong for you or a group of people.>
Is it wrong for you to sit with the bottoms of your feet showing to another person? Is it wrong for you to caress a pretty lady’s face? Is it wrong for you to eat food with your left hand? Is it wrong for you to sign "Okay" to another person? Is it wrong for you to own a firearm? Of course not! However, all these are wrong on at least one other culture. Okay, it wasn’t fair to place a firearm in this context; That comes under laws, not so much as a cultural custom. Laws can change, customs and cultures don’t change as fast. What I’m getting across is what is right for one person or society is not always right for another person or society.
quote:
Originally posted by Doubro:
The only person you have a right to deny a gun to is YOURSELF.
Yes, and the BATF if they can find an excuse. If you have a domestic violence charge against you, you can’t legally purchase a firearm.>
I’d like to see some criminal acts void the Right to Bear Arms. For some reason, armed robbery and murder in the first degree strikes me as two crimes that warrant getting Rights removed.
<As for myself denying anyone firearms, nope. Not me! More the merrier! > Ahhhh…. I had to do that, but I’d rather not go into it. It’s not something I enjoy talking about.
<Defend yourself with deadly force in some countries will result in getting tossed in jail. I was almost jailed in British Columbia for stopping a jewelry robber in the Surrey Mall. I was told I was going to be brought up on assault charges for physically stopping a man from breaking into a jewelry case and stealing the jewelry in that case. Unless I want to be brought on charges, I have to stay out of Surrey, BC.>
To me, they were wrong. However, they voted the law in, so they can live in that type of society. It’s what they wanted. For them, they feel it’s right. For some reason, I just don’t feel safe in places where I can’t take my pistols with me. Not that I "need" my pistol; I’m capable of defending myself without them, but I like having the option of using them if I need. Insurance; You never know if you’ll need it! Just my opinion.
<I’m not speaking for every Brit. I’m talking about them as a society because, as a society, they passed a law to restrict firearms ownership.>
They don’t recognize the same inalienable Rights as our Founding Fathers did. That part of the past belong to the US, not Britain.
<You’re right! I know I love my family enough where I wouldn’t think twice about using deadly force to protect them....However, the British, as a society, do not feel the same way as you and I. Listen to their rhetoric; They will state that is for purpose for the police. It’s their reality. > Only time will tell to them if it’s a mistake, just like time told you. Just like some event or realization happened to you, it’ll have to happen to them. If you rant too much, they’ll only become more steadfast in their beliefs. If you offer the information and allow them to either accept or reject on their own, they’ll consider with their eyes more open.
Unfortunately, the people from all over the world listen to what they are told by a Government that they believe and trust. They also listen to the propaganda that is in the newspaper and TV. Most people are not used to questioning everything that they see and hear. It’ll take an eye opener to get people to realize. Sometimes you have to allow a person to get bitten by the dog for them to believe you when you told them the dog bites.
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Translated: In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags.
No.
<I’m not speaking for every Brit. I’m talking about them as a society because, as a society, they passed a law to restrict firearms ownership.
They don’t recognize the same inalienable Rights as our Founding Fathers did. That part of the past belong to the US, not Britain. >
Actually, the right to arms was first seen in a document refering to the "Rights of Englishmen"...
You seem to be obsessed with this relativistic vision that all cultures are equally valid, and that if a society chooses to pass laws which reflect it's preferences and prejudices, that we must unconditionally accept it as "correct" for them... you like to note communicative differences... gestures, as evidence that we must accept other cultures whole... but there are perenial truths that are much more important to recognize that these slight differences.
An example, for 1000 years before 1900, 80-90% of the Chinese women had their FEET Bound... a horribly excrutiating practice which hobbled women for life, and often caused their deaths. All for aesthic pleasure, which turned to a cultural tradition.
In the ten years from 1900 - 1910 the Western nations put such pressure on the Chinese to end the practice, that the percent of Binding went from 80+ to about 10%.
Somethings are WRONG, and they will be wrong no matter what cultural differnces you care to erroneously envoke.
Well, they already do, but I personally think that the Right to Bear arms should be reinstated to non-violent criminals, just like their right to vote.
If the Penal system claims to have "rehabilitated" a convict enough to unleash them on society, then they should no longer be considered a threat. If the Parole board had to consider that they'd be letting people back on the street who could legally go and buy a gun, perhaps they would think twice before letting a murderer go...
Besides, I don't want to live in a country where I have to worry what killer they've just let out of prison...they should just give them back ALL their rights OR keep them locked up, until they are of no threat to anyone anymore. A convicts probation should include a goal of full reintegration back into society, so that they have all the rights they would have had otherwise. Only then are you giving them a chance at becoming true members of society again. Otherwise, you're just dumping criminals, of varying degrees, on the streets who will most likely be able to get a gun on the black market anyway.
You see the world in black and white. It isn't. I suggest you travel a bit, might widen your viewpoint.
Just a minor correction, but I think you are fogetting the fuck in the desert involving the Green Berets - weren't they trying an armed rescue?
I'll ignore the rest because, it all been said so many times and I'm bored of being told that unless I agree with everthing you say I must have been brainwashed. The fact that you fail to see any other p.o.v. except your own is sad really. It takes some arrogance to believe that you are right and that everyone else is wrong.
First of all, not EVERYONE ELSE, disagrees with me. I suggest you consider something that you feel particularly strong about. Something you believe is universal...
Do you think that Slavery is "Ok" for some cultures? Well, what if some Numbnuts told you that they took a referendum, and the Majority of people in the Sudan think that the Slave trade is simply a quirky little custom and shouldn't be judged by narrow minded English or Americans, because it has nothing to do with "Their" culture?
Huh? Slavery Ok with you then?
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 11-08-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 11-08-2001).]
I have "traveled", and my core principles have already been decided upon, a decision which keeps me grounded in reality. I don't change with the wind, or think that simple-minded metaphors like "You see the world in Black and White" have any qualitative meaning. You could just as well say that I see the world through "Rose colored glasses" and you would be just as close as you weren't to making a relavant point.
My mind isn't going to change if I met the Queen mother, or had tea with a beggar in Bangladesh, to me it's all the same, because human rights are constant.
I see the world through my OWN eyes. And I call it like I see it...WHEREEVER I AM ...
You are really missing the point when you condemn others' 'relativism.' The simple fact is that if someone says something is right it is right for them. You may disagree with them. Fine. But at the risk of become that which you most hate do you embrak upon the supremely arrogant step of saying the just because you feel or think that they are wrong, they must be wrong.
You feel that there are absolute values that transcend cultural boundaries. Bully for you. Not everyone may agree with that. If you had truly taken aboard the American philosophy you would disagree with them in a far less adversarial way.
You have repeatedly condemned the US Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression. If so, it was a war fought on the same grounds as you use to condemn those of us that recognise that cultural differences exist and do make a difference to morality.
Turn THAT around and apply it to YOURSELF, oh bleating sheep...
And to YOUR self, thanatos.
***
On a completely different note...
Several people have commented that if one is unwilling to fight and die for one's freedom (freedom from what? freedom to do what?) then one is undeserving of it.
Well, yesterday at the office I had a cup of tea. Would I have been annoyed if someone had spilt or spoiled it? Yes. Would I have tooled up with a heavy machine gun and grenades, ready to blow to smithereens anyone who dared to interfere with my 'right' to have a cuppa, milk and one, in peace? No. Am I undeserving of my tea, then?
One thing that most of the Americans forget to talk about, because it is a simple part of life that we all were taught. Being in the military at one point (most of the yanks posting) we all were taught about continuation of force. Basicly you use the lowest force possable to win. That is why when there is a protest, the police come in with riot gear on and have a variaty of weapons. They will stay peacable untell they have to start using tear gas.
So if someone trys to spit in your tea, simply tell them to watch out cause you want that tea and you will protect it.