quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

I think if you went to...say...Cuba today and said socialism was merely economic control you'd be jeered. Or say China where the socialist government is currently really cracking down on decent of thought. Please don't tell me that you don't see a connection between what socialist do once in power and that form of government. I'm sure those in the grip of socialist repression would be agog at you saying its just central control of the means of production.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

For once, a sensible reply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I live in the USA, and I don't really fear what you're saying all that much, at least not any more than I would fear an auto accident or an earthquake. These things do happen and death can occur from many causes.

I lived in the US for a bit (NC and FL) and I can honestly say it's the only place I've been in the world where I didn't feel safe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I don't actually believe that these individuals think they have the right to kill and terrorize people on a regular basis. In these mass-shooting situations, they invariably end with the killer being dead or captured (although they likely wanted to die), and since they're unable to repeat their crime, they can't do it on a "regular basis." I don't actually fear them, since they're the ones who are in pain and full of fear. The main reason they lash out is because they feel powerless, and they're trying to compensate somehow.

You are probably right.
However, there always seems to be many more, all over the country, that seem to enable yet another mass killing somewhere.
We don't see that here or in Australia where there are strict gun laws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

Although eulero may live in a rabbit warren, when was the last time Italy had mass killings by people who shouldn't have access to guns?

To be honest, I thought HunterCA was out of line by taking cheap shots against Italy. Just because Eulero is from there doesn't mean that he's a representative for the whole country.

I quite agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

In fact, when was the last mass killing anywhere in central Europe by similar people?

Well, there was that mass shooting in Norway a few years ago, although you may not consider that to be part of Central Europe.

It isn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Then there was World War II, in which a lot of mass killing occurred in Central Europe. During the Cold War, there were a number of people shot trying to escape from behind the Iron Curtain, not to mention the atrocities committed by the regimes involved.

But since those were killings perpetrated by governments, I guess those are considered "good killings" in the eyes of Europeans, since governments can do no wrong. Only individuals from the lower classes are to be singled out for scorn and disdain, whereas governments (and others at that level, such as mafiosi) who do the same thing should be given a pass. That's what this whole debate seems to come down to, in a nutshell.

If you follow Bama's opinion, the US soldiers won WWII.
But, true, government killings appear to be acceptable for most people, unfortunately.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:


We see this almost daily in the US.

I sometimes wonder how much of this is played up by the national media. The stats show that the murder rate has been decreasing in the United States since the early 1990s.

Whilst the rates are slowly reducing, it's still a long way above anywhere else in the world by several orders of magnitude.
We aren't talking about other causes of death (which others tend to interject with); just gun-related deaths.
In something I read recently, you are 668x more likely to die of a gun death in the US than in the UK.
And we have strict gun controls here.
So as much as many in the US (and on here) want their guns, the figures are startling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:


So before anyone jumps on their soap-box about responsible gun owners, it is clear from anyone outside of the US that there are waaay too many that are irresponsible.

Yeah, although it's not something that I personally worry about all that much. While I agree with liberals on a variety of issues, I think that they're wasting a lot of valuable political capital on banning guns when they should be using their time and energy towards more important issues.

Quite true. I actually agree.
Although if you look at our past, in the 20's when our gun controls were introduced, we also had something in our constitution that should have been debated and arguably had a referendum on it, theyt just simply swept it aside and enacted the gun control laws.
So it doesn't always take a lot of debate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Others have said as much... the poet Dryden's 'eldest law' comes to mind. Apparently not everyone agrees that self defense is a good thing, but I'm in favor of it... myself.

The usual debate rhetoric seems to revolve around the logical fallacy that a right can be carried to the absurd.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

I would hope that everyone would disparage criminal violence, but as you can see from this thread, there is a lot of jingoism, revisionism, and othering going on from all corners of the globe.

The fundamental problem in comparing the US to other countries, is that there is no country with the needed factors to serve as a control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

My feeling is that this thread has been hijacked by people who want to disparage "American Violence." I'd like to discuss the right of the individual as discussed in the constitution and Declaration of Independence.

But, after disparaging criminal violence, what right do individuals hold to protect themselves to protect themselves from said violence? I say whatever complete right.

That is an interesting point. It's also a point that a post modern philosopher would agree with from the standpoint of who judges 'right'. In my case I then have to go back to the question does might make right? In a majority of the world it does. For instance if I'm in a bad part of town and accosted by bad people, if I have the might do I have the right to protect myself to an extreme. I believe I do. That extreme may not be right in an alternate situation. But, what right does the government have to pre-ordain my right prior to examination of the situation?

I am sure gun owners like Raul Rodriguez, Donald Montanez/Rivera, John Spooner and others feel the same way you do when they shot and killed innocent people and are now in prison. I would say the Government has every right.

I'm pleased to hear you say you're sure you know how crazy people think.

I worked in mental institutions so I do have some experience. You seem to be biased and very judgmental and know little of many things you have posted as I corrected a few. Do you really know anything about Marxism? Have you read "Das Kapital" and/or "The Communist Manifesto" "Socialism Past, Present and Future", Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" or are you just ranting? [sm=soapbox.gif]

Actually, shortly after his death, someone published a list of the ten books President Kennedy thought should be read. So, darn ol me read them. The Communist Manifesto was on the list. So I started reding that tripe something liked forty years ago. In addition I was once engaged to a woman who taught philosophy at Harvard. Ya, I know, being silly again. If you don't think I had to read to keep up with her then you've not been around smart women. Interestingly enough, when Red China released Chairman Mao's diaries the Pentagon immediately bought rights to them. I actually helped my fiancé translate them for the Pentagon. It was cool. We actually started translating Mao's poems into English as well.

With Mao's diaries you actually saw the implementation of the Chinese socialist system of forty years by Mao. I'd like to bet nosthro that's an experience you didn't have at the mental Heath facility.

In the post modern philosophical paradigm you are never limited to either or. That is modernistic thinking. In post modernism you can choose your world view and not have to prove it. That's how you can accept your whacked out theories about slave holders and the second amendment. Socialism is a post modern construct. It never has to prove itself, just as you cherry pick your facts. I understand that about your thinking nosthro. What is happening here is that I reject post modern philosophy and think with modern logic. You can't understand that so you think I misrepresent things because I don't validate your chosen logical paradigm. I understand that and you don't. So I accept you have trouble understanding me. Yet, I don't believe your misunderstanding merits condescension as you seem to. But, I find that is often a trait of post modern thinkers who are having their paradigm shaken. Those people only seem to like to speak to people who parrot them.

I wonder how long you hat this little speech saved? Did I mention you are judgmental? Also many of the poems of Chairmen Mao had been translated into English long before his death, the last poems were written in 1965. In 1966 much of Mao writings were published including his red book in some 117 countries including the US and in English. In 1995 Mao personal physician Dr. Li Zhisui published Mao diaries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Sorry peon. Here's the statement on the bottom of this statement. Since I don't live in Britain I believed it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

I think if you went to...say...Cuba today and said socialism was merely economic control you'd be jeered. Or say China where the socialist government is currently really cracking down on decent of thought. Please don't tell me that you don't see a connection between what socialist do once in power and that form of government. I'm sure those in the grip of socialist repression would be agog at you saying its just central control of the means of production.

No, they'd nod and agree. On account of that being the actual fucking definition of what socialism is, and on account of them being a pretty well educated bunch.

Of course, we'd then have a discussion about how fucked up Socialist government quickly becomes. We might go to one of the newly liberalised restaurants and talk about how history has taught us, that socialism is unworkable, and leads to the kind of repression that you describe. Let me throw you another clue-bone... I'm not a socialist, I think socialism is silly!

You're confusing the end with the means, and the point I am making is that describing the UK, or any of the Western European countries as "socialist" is so wrong, and so strongly suggestive of ignorance that I'd urge you to check out the links and reconsider your approach, as it reflects very poorly on you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Sorry peon. Here's the statement on the bottom of this statement. Since I don't live in Britain I believed it.

Can I assure you, that we've had many democratic elections since the 20's, and that the voting public have had ample opportunity to call for changes to the law?

But Peon, and indirectly you, make a really important point - In the absence of a proper constitution, the government could change the law with a simple majority.

But, could Congress not repeal the 2nd Amendment with the right majority?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Sorry peon. Here's the statement on the bottom of this statement. Since I don't live in Britain I believed it.

Can I assure you, that we've had many democratic elections since the 20's, and that the voting public have had ample opportunity to call for changes to the law?

But Peon, and indirectly you, make a really important point - In the absence of a proper constitution, the government could change the law with a simple majority.

But, could Congress not repeal the 2nd Amendment with the right majority?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml



But, could Congress not repeal the 2nd Amendment with the right majority?

The 2nd or any other ammendment can be repealed by the use of a constitutionaql ammendment such as when the 21st ammendment struck down the 18th ammendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Sorry peon. Here's the statement on the bottom of this statement. Since I don't live in Britain I believed it.

Can I assure you, that we've had many democratic elections since the 20's, and that the voting public have had ample opportunity to call for changes to the law?

But Peon, and indirectly you, make a really important point - In the absence of a proper constitution, the government could change the law with a simple majority.

But, could Congress not repeal the 2nd Amendment with the right majority?

I think they need also 3/4 of the states to ratify the amendement. But no direct involvement of the people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

May I respond to your clue-- bone. This thread is about the right to bear arms and not the literal definition of socialism. To apply government control on the rights of citizens is germane and the literal, as opposed to usual, definition of socialism is not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Sorry peon. Here's the statement on the bottom of this statement. Since I don't live in Britain I believed it.

Can I assure you, that we've had many democratic elections since the 20's, and that the voting public have had ample opportunity to call for changes to the law?

But Peon, and indirectly you, make a really important point - In the absence of a proper constitution, the government could change the law with a simple majority.

But, could Congress not repeal the 2nd Amendment with the right majority?

No, a change to the constitution requires a ratification by two thirds of the states after congress passes the change. The States can ratify by action of their legislature, but the last time this was tried many states put it out as a referendum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Sorry peon. Here's the statement on the bottom of this statement. Since I don't live in Britain I believed it.

Can I assure you, that we've had many democratic elections since the 20's, and that the voting public have had ample opportunity to call for changes to the law?

But Peon, and indirectly you, make a really important point - In the absence of a proper constitution, the government could change the law with a simple majority.

But, could Congress not repeal the 2nd Amendment with the right majority?

No, a change to the constitution requires a ratification by two thirds of the states after congress passes the change. The States can ratify by action of their legislature, but the last time this was tried many states put it out as a referendum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

May I respond to your clue-- bone. This thread is about the right to bear arms and not the literal definition of socialism. To apply government control on the rights of citizens is germane and the literal, as opposed to usual, definition of socialism is not.

As I've said before, I'm only trying to help you out, your misuse of the term socialism in the context of any discussion, takes away from the, doubtless, strength of your argument by making you appear stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

And reaching 40 years back to high school government class, I think it can also go the other way with ratification by 2/3 of the states sending something to congress which then would have to pass it. I'd have to look that up though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Sorry peon. Here's the statement on the bottom of this statement. Since I don't live in Britain I believed it.

Can I assure you, that we've had many democratic elections since the 20's, and that the voting public have had ample opportunity to call for changes to the law?

But Peon, and indirectly you, make a really important point - In the absence of a proper constitution, the government could change the law with a simple majority.

But, could Congress not repeal the 2nd Amendment with the right majority?

No, a change to the constitution requires a ratification by two thirds of the states after congress passes the change. The States can ratify by action of their legislature, but the last time this was tried many states put it out as a referendum.

That's certainly a level of protection that you have in the USA that we don't in the UK.

Our right-leaning government is fixing to throw out the Human Rights Act, and if it gets a simple majority in the next election (which looks unlikely) it'll be able to do it on a simple majority.

But, of course, it is still the case that if enough people in the UK wanted a relaxation in the gun laws, they could campaign for one, but there's no real campaign, so... I hope you'll be convinced that as a fully function Liberal Democracy, the people aren't living under any kind of "socialist yoke".