Time to take the gun from the American public!

Originally posted by nenothtu

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are absolutely NOT Federal problems. The federal government has no business at all dabbling in them. Nor should it be setting standards for state governmental internal affairs - only mediating in disputes between states.

They are not federal problems.

They are federal PROGRAMS! A non-profit enterprise to serve the citizens of the united states with social welfare.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by nenothtu

While you're looking up "state", look up "federation" as well. There is a reason the Federation is named "The United States of America", and not "The Monolithic Nation of America"

I could be wrong but it seems you are confusing unions with federations.

A "federation" is a union of partially self-governing states. They typically govern themselves internally, and rely on the central government to mediate disputes between the constituent states. Thus the "partially" self-governing descriptor. They are sovereign internally, and relate to other states via the mediation of the central federal government.

The Bill of Rights of the US Constitution does not grant rights to the citizens of the various states, it recognizes rights already inherent, and constrains the federal government from interfering in those rights. Likewise, each state has it's own constitution, which governs the internal operation of that state, and recognizes the rights of the citizens of that state, independent of the federal recognition,

That simply is untrue and does not make sense. You only fix what is broken!

Yeah, that was kind of my point about the progressive proclivity to fix what isn't broken, like the Constitution. To be fair to them, they do at least try to break it first in order to make it appear like it needs to be fixed. They use methods like claiming the Constitution "grants" rights, or the ever popular claim that it is a "living document" in need of constant interpretation and reinterpretation in order to make it appear "broken".

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by nenothtu

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are absolutely NOT Federal problems. The federal government has no business at all dabbling in them. Nor should it be setting standards for state governmental internal affairs - only mediating in disputes between states.

They are not federal problems.

They are federal PROGRAMS! A non-profit enterprise to serve the citizens of the united states with social welfare.

They are federal meddling in business which does not belong to it. I think of undue interference as "problems". They have hijacked portions of my pay for almost my entire life, and I will never live long enough to see a dime of repayment. Someone is sure as hell profiting in that "non-profit enterprise".

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
If you choose to live by the sword, you will die by the sword.

Many here stated they will defend their guns from being taken. Does that mean you will rather get shot dead, than have you weapon taken away? What then of your family who you wanted to protect with your guns?

vvv

What it means is that a lot of blood will be shed between the tyrannical government and the people who are defending their god given right to bear arms. Regulating their usage and banning them are two entirely different things.

Originally posted by nenothtu

A "federation" is a union of partially self-governing states. They typically govern themselves internally, and rely on the central government to mediate disputes between the constituent states. Thus the "partially" self-governing descriptor. They are sovereign internally, and relate to other states via the mediation of the central federal government.

I find it suspicious that wikipedia does not adequately define what a union is rather resorts only to the civil war era. I have been trying to find a description of the differences between the two but to no avail. ''

Anyway if we go by the EU on one side, and the USA on the other side, I think we can rationalise appropriately.

EU is a union: A loose affiliation of nations tied together by common interest and goals.

USA is a federation: A strong affiliation of states tied together under a federal government.

Basically in rough terms a union is a very weak federation.

Yeah, that was kind of my point about the progressive proclivity to fix what isn't broken, like the Constitution. To be fair to them, they do at least try to break it first in order to make it appear like it needs to be fixed. They use methods like claiming the Constitution "grants" rights, or the ever popular claim that it is a "living document" in need of constant interpretation and reinterpretation in order to make it appear "broken".

edit on 2012/4/7 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

The job of a politician is to make a mountain out of a mole-hill, and make a mole-hill out of a mountain.

Congress gets together to con people...that is why it is the opposite of progress....and they get paid for it!

Why put all the blame on progresives, when according to its definition it wants to progress society? A conservative wants to conserve the sick status quo which tends to favor the wealthy and connected. It is not rocket science although the elite always find a way to bastardise everything in their favor by investment and speculation.

He who controls the flow of money ultimately controls the input&output of every system!

I'll 'give it to you' allright.

the idea of removing the guns from the american public always amuses me. this will never happen. if the genuine attempt was made you'd see every redneck (millions) in the streets within minutes of the announcement or uncovering of such events. as to why anyone thinks it would be a good idea, i'm also lost. america is the last remaining armed public base. you remove the guns from americans hands and it's game over for the planet.

The USA is dying from a legal orgy of control-freaks exercising corporate power and consolidation. Starting a business? Take a loan?

Pay to play - play too well you die.




BTW, Ayn Rand missed the concept of "too big to fail = too big to allow", the robber-Barron problem has much in common with the problems of communism.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I find it suspicious that wikipedia does not adequately define what a union is rather resorts only to the civil war era. I have been trying to find a description of the differences between the two but to no avail. '

'

Anyway if we go by the EU on one side, and the USA on the other side, I think we can rationalise appropriately.

EU is a union: A loose affiliation of nations tied together by common interest and goals.

USA is a federation: A strong affiliation of states tied together under a federal government.

Basically in rough terms a union is a very weak federation.

So it seems you believe it to be more a matter of degree than a matter of organization or structure.

I'm not familiar with the organization of the EU very much, but it seems to be at a stage that the US was in around 1790. From there it seems that the Federal government has periodically seized more power than it is allocated in the Constitution. It would be reasonable to expect the same thing to occur in the EU.

We had a whole war over that quest for power in which the feds won and the states and the people lost. That didn't change the Constitution very much, but it changed the way it was viewed and the way it is applied. It may surprise you - or it may not - to learn that the Republicans were the "progressives" of the day, and were referred to by themselves and others as "radicals".

You have the embryonic GOP to thank for the radical progressivism of today.

The job of a politician is to make a mountain out of a mole-hill, and make a mole-hill out of a mountain.

Congress gets together to con people...that is why it is the opposite of progress....and they get paid for it!

Agreed.

Why put all the blame on progresives, when according to its definition it wants to progress society? A conservative wants to conserve the sick status quo which tends to favor the wealthy and connected. It is not rocket science although the elite always find a way to bastardise everything in their favor by investment and speculation.

I'm not blaming it all on progressives - the neocons have a sizable proportion of blame to shoulder as well, There are no conservatives currently in DC that I've been able to find. It seems the place is lousy with liberals, progressives (hyper-liberals), and neocons (liberals trying to masquerade as conservatives).

Now, it seems tha tthe US is in a period of flux, at a crossroads. it happens periodically, as it did in the 1870's and at other timesd. People who would once have been classified as "conservative" have been redefined as "radicals", such as myself. It's an uncomfortable place to be, but there it is. People who were once classified as "liberals" are now redefined to be "conservatives", like Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich. "Neocons" are neither new nor conservative, but they are fighting like hell to hijack that mantle from the old guard.

There is no doubt that progressives want progress, and I have no quarrel with progress per se - it's where they want to progress to that I have issues with. Progress by itself is inevitable. I just don't like the cliff they are steering our progress towards.

He who controls the flow of money ultimately controls the input&output of every system!

That depends entirely on how much value you place on money. The less value you place on it, the less control they have over you. This is one of the things I find so amusing about the Occupy movement. They decry the "corporations" and the "money people" while simultaneously placing far too much stress on the things money buys. Simply seizing the system and appropriating it for your own desires to the detriment of others is not changing the system - it's just swapping the owners around and confiscating the work of others - the very same thing they are accusing the current system of being guilty of.

Originally posted by reitze

BTW, Ayn Rand missed the concept of "too big to fail = too big to allow", the robber-Barron problem has much in common with the problems of communism.

I deny the concept of "too big to fail". NOTHING is too big to fail. If it's mishandled - whether through malfeasance at the top or simple bone headed decisions - it is DESTINED for failure. Let it die to make room for a better idea and more responsible managers.

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by METACOMET

 

The Swiss are a good example of sensible gun laws working, as are many of the Scandinavian countries. Those people seem to get along fine with very little gun crime or mass murder on a regular basis.. With the exception of what happened in Norway last year. Maybe there are deeper social problems within the U.S, particularly amongst young people..

If you have close to a 100% chance of that home a burglar is breaking into houses a gun, and just as likely the owner has been well trained, I believe that would cause the number of violent crime to be as low as it is in Switzerland. Ya think?

Disarming the citizenry makes it that much easier for a government to oppress them. Look at all the countries that ban gun ownership.

/TOA

Originally posted by nenothtu

So it seems you believe it to be more a matter of degree than a matter of organization or structure.

I'm not familiar with the organization of the EU very much, but it seems to be at a stage that the US was in around 1790. From there it seems that the Federal government has periodically seized more power than it is allocated in the Constitution. It would be reasonable to expect the same thing to occur in the EU.

We had a whole war over that quest for power in which the feds won and the states and the people lost. That didn't change the Constitution very much, but it changed the way it was viewed and the way it is applied. It may surprise you - or it may not - to learn that the Republicans were the "progressives" of the day, and were referred to by themselves and others as "radicals".

You have the embryonic GOP to thank for the radical progressivism of today.

Maybe they were radical in that they wanted to end slavery? Seems like the status-quo of that era was pro-slavery.

I'm not blaming it all on progressives - the neocons have a sizable proportion of blame to shoulder as well, There are no conservatives currently in DC that I've been able to find. It seems the place is lousy with liberals, progressives (hyper-liberals), and neocons (liberals trying to masquerade as conservatives).

Now, it seems tha tthe US is in a period of flux, at a crossroads. it happens periodically, as it did in the 1870's and at other timesd. People who would once have been classified as "conservative" have been redefined as "radicals", such as myself. It's an uncomfortable place to be, but there it is. People who were once classified as "liberals" are now redefined to be "conservatives", like Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich. "Neocons" are neither new nor conservative, but they are fighting like hell to hijack that mantle from the old guard.

Well that is interesting to hear. I always thought there was no room in america for progressives(socialists) and revolutionaries(communists). It was either conservatives(republican) or liberals(democrat).

What would you call a true conservative? Maybe a libertarian......

There is no doubt that progressives want progress, and I have no quarrel with progress per se - it's where they want to progress to that I have issues with. Progress by itself is inevitable. I just don't like the cliff they are steering our progress towards.

Please don't tell me that obama or clinton was a progressive because that is not funny. Obama might have some progressive ideas but we all remember what happened to kennedy in the 60s. What cliff do you speak of when all the policies in washington are as conservative as they can possibly be?

He who controls the flow of money ultimately controls the input&output of every system!

That depends entirely on how much value you place on money. The less value you place on it, the less control they have over you. This is one of the things I find so amusing about the Occupy movement. They decry the "corporations" and the "money people" while simultaneously placing far too much stress on the things money buys. Simply seizing the system and appropriating it for your own desires to the detriment of others is not changing the system - it's just swapping the owners around and confiscating the work of others - the very same thing they are accusing the current system of being guilty of.

I neither hate nor love money, but I do recognise everyone needs a certain amount to live a normal and happy life. All the money printed cannot legally be destroyed(it is a felony) YET 30 to 40 percent of the american population can't afford a basic health care plan, spend ONLY a few weeks on vacation, don't have enough money to keep their homes, lose their business due to the struggling economy or someone buys them out at the last moment, have to work 2-3 part time jobs to make ends meet................SO WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?

It is called consolidation of wealth that worstens with each bear and bull market with smart investors&speculators who buy when everyone sells and sell when everyone buys. They have insider information who share it with the swindlers in washington and state governments. Then they use that money to buy insolvent companies for pennies to the dollar. Some people have perfected this better than an italian making sicilian pizza.

Distribution of wealth becomes necessary at this point, but more taxes means more money being paid to the creditors of america, which means the elite win again. The elite being the billionares and trillionares who buy treasury bonds. Sure I bought a few hundred worth of T-Bills when I was young and now have several hundred dollars. Whoopie do!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by nenothtu

We had a whole war over that quest for power in which the feds won and the states and the people lost. That didn't change the Constitution very much, but it changed the way it was viewed and the way it is applied. It may surprise you - or it may not - to learn that the Republicans were the "progressives" of the day, and were referred to by themselves and others as "radicals".

You have the embryonic GOP to thank for the radical progressivism of today.

Maybe they were radical in that they wanted to end slavery? Seems like the status-quo of that era was pro-slavery.

No. Slavery was not the issue that initiated the war, it was not injected as an issue until 1862/63, as a tactic of economic warfare with the 1 Jan 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, rather than a genuine social issue. It was a social issue before that, but not the cause of the war, nor a factor in the war until it was appropriated as a tactic.

Well that is interesting to hear. I always thought there was no room in america for progressives(socialists) and revolutionaries(communists). It was either conservatives(republican) or liberals(democrat).

What would you call a true conservative? Maybe a libertarian......

America has all kinds, and there is room for all. Without adversity, one encounters stagnation. Not all Libertarians are conservative, but some are. I would think that a conservative seeks to conserve the principles upon which the nation was initially founded, but depending on the speaker, the bar for what constitutes "conservative" is motile. It seems that, due to neocon efforts to redefine (yet again!) the meaning of "conservative", it now means something other than that, and closer to the old Reconstruction Era principles inflicted upon the South by the Republican Federals and northern industrialists. Corporatists to the bone, and carpet baggers to a fault, acting in collusion with what were then called "scalawags" - native quislings who supported the enemy agenda. Their vision seems to have been a "New South" dominated by a corporate North. A "New" anything is, by definition, not conservative - until a hundred years later, if it sticks. Once it's entrenched, it BECOMES the status quo, and therefore "conservative".

Please don't tell me that obama or clinton was a progressive because that is not funny. Obama might have some progressive ideas but we all remember what happened to kennedy in the 60s. What cliff do you speak of when all the policies in washington are as conservative as they can possibly be?

Washington policies are not "conservative" in my book. Not a single one is driving towards the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Obama and Clinton are neocons with flashy paint jobs and misleading labels. They are a part of the false dichotomy to keep people guessing and their attention misdirected, involved in partisan infighting for fake parties that are in essence not much different one from the other.

I neither hate nor love money, but I do recognise everyone needs a certain amount to live a normal and happy life. All the money printed cannot legally be destroyed(it is a felony) YET 30 to 40 percent of the american population can't afford a basic health care plan, spend ONLY a few weeks on vacation, don't have enough money to keep their homes, lose their business due to the struggling economy or someone buys them out at the last moment, have to work 2-3 part time jobs to make ends meet................SO WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?

"Normal" perhaps - that depends on one's perception of "normal", and the norm these days does seem to involve spending more than one can ever hope to make, leading to debt slavery so they can have "stuff". That sort of normal looks a lot like ordinary greed from my perspective. One can have a very happy life with little or no money at all. "Happy" is controlled internally, not externally. It's an attitude, not a place. I personally choose not to give other people control of or responsibility for my own happiness, but that's just me.

You take vacations? I've not taken a vacation since 1993, and I don't miss them at all. Aggravating things, they are to me.

I don't want a "basic health care plan" at all, because that involves doctors and hospitals and the like. I want nothing to do with those, and therefore don't need insurance to pay them with.

I don't know where that money went. I don't have it, and I don't want it, so I'll leave it to those who prefer to chase it to figure out where it went.

It is called consolidation of wealth that worstens with each bear and bull market with smart investors&speculators who buy when everyone sells and sell when everyone buys. They have insider information who share it with the swindlers in washington and state governments. Then they use that money to buy insolvent companies for pennies to the dollar. Some people have perfected this better than an italian making sicilian pizza.

Oh, no doubt the swindlers make it hard on most folks. Speculation and trading in futures should carry a prison sentence rather than a back pat. I'm thinking 20 years would not be excessive. Those activities are not "capitalism", they are theft, pure and simple. They make their money by betting you will have some at some future point, then stealing it before you can get your hands on it.

Distribution of wealth becomes necessary at this point, but more taxes means more money being paid to the creditors of america, which means the elite win again. The elite being the billionares and trillionares who buy treasury bonds. Sure I bought a few hundred worth of T-Bills when I was young and now have several hundred dollars. Whoopie do!

If it's all the same to you, I'll opt out of that "distribution of wealth". I don't have much to take financially, and I don't want any of what you've got, T-bills or not. I don't measure my wealth in dollars and cents.

If the government chooses to live beyond it's means funding entitlements and whatnot, that's not my problem - it's theirs. I don't partake of them, and I'm not paying for them. I don't see any difference in increasing taxes to cover their bad bets and my neighbor shaking me down because he couldn't control his credit card spending. I don't mind giving people a hand up - that's actually where most of the money I made went - but it becomes a problem when they start expecting it and thinking I owe it to them. I do not.

reply to post by kerazeesicko


I look at your avatar and think to myself, "this little girl ought to go back to playing video games and take her big sword and devilish tough guy look back to the government agency who designed it and start over. You are a plant . With 200 trillion in debt for such enterprises I would expect better quality from our supreme beloved leader."

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by purplemer

 

I tend to think that guns are not something that should be in everyday use.. The sooner they are rid off the better. We all agree there needs to be a cut off point with weaponry. Its were that cut off point should be.

You would not be happy if peeps were running around with tactical nuclear weapons for example...

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by purplemer

 

I tend to think that guns are not something that should be in everyday use.. The sooner they are rid off the better. We all agree there needs to be a cut off point with weaponry. Its were that cut off point should be.

You would not be happy if peeps were running around with tactical nuclear weapons for example...

I think that cutoff point should reside in the common sense of the individual. If he has none, he probably will not have been able to amass the money to buy a nuke, either.

Common sense dictates that individuals not go around spending way too much money on nukes, since they are essentially useless. You do not need a nuke to counter a non-nuclear threat, and the government isn't going to poison it's own well by nuking us, thereby destroying it's own land as well.

However, if you insist on getting a nuke anyhow, I would much prefer you go with the tactical one you suggest, rather than a strategic one. I don't care if you take out your own block - that's between you and your affected neighbors on that block. I would be less charitable should you decide to take out all 1500 blocks in the city with a strategic nuke.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

......their god given right to bear arms.

I acknowledge that The Right To Bear Arms is very much a part of the American way of life and culture and that it is protected within the US Constitution etc, but that really did cause me to raise an eyebrow.
'God' given right?
I thought it was a man made amendment to your Constitution?

Is the whole Constitution divinely inspired?

If so then I really struggle with the specific seperation of State and religion as defined in the US Constitution.

reply to post by katiepea

you remove the guns from americans hands and it's game over for the planet.

Really?
And why would that be?

I understand it would be the source of some serious unrest in the US but exactly how would that affect me here in the UK or someone in Russia or China or wherever?

Sorry to say this but the world doesn't revolve around what happens in the USA.

There's a big, bad world out there where the going's on and events in America are absolutely irrelevant.

reply to post by nenothtu

I'm not familiar with the organization of the EU very much, but it seems to be at a stage that the US was in around 1790. From there it seems that the Federal government has periodically seized more power than it is allocated in the Constitution. It would be reasonable to expect the same thing to occur in the EU.

Don't really know about the first part of this paragraph but you're quite correct about the EU illegally seizing more power than it is entitled to.

The EU is being forced upon the peoples of Europe by a group of people who seek to impose a Franco-Germanic dominated European superstate and eliminate national identities and cultures.

This is totally against the wishes of the British people and probably the majority of continental Europeans.

Every single British Prime Minister from Heath onwards, and our current monarch, have been guilty of treasonously allowing a transfer of sovereignty to a foreign power.

reply to post by The Old American

Disarming the citizenry makes it that much easier for a government to oppress them. Look at all the countries that ban gun ownership.

Ok....I've looked at all them countries...,,exactly what is your point?

You don't really believe that you have any more freedoms than say we do in the UK or Holland or Sweden or numerous other European countries?
Or what about Australia, New Zealand etc?

And gun ownership isn't banned, it is merely controlled - quite a different thing altogether.

reply to post by nenothtu

Common sense

Alas, if only sense was common.

reply to post by METACOMET

 

The Swiss are a good example of sensible gun laws working, as are many of the Scandinavian countries. Those people seem to get along fine with very little gun crime or mass murder on a regular basis.. With the exception of what happened in Norway last year. Maybe there are deeper social problems within the U.S, particularly amongst young people..

Scandnavian countries and their gun control laws are not a model to use to be honest. Its entirely possible 77 children would not have had to die from the wingnut on his shooting spree had the police on the island been armed. The body count might not have been that high had the police not had to wait for authorization to go back to the station to get their guns, which required approval from command staff first.

Gun control does not work and as we see in the case of the scandanavian country, the criminal was able to get guns to use in light of the "strict gun control laws" of the country.

So we have law abiding citizens who were murdered because the very law designed to protect them by outlawing gun possession allowed the criminal to do his killing spree unopposed.

Guns do not kill people - people do.

There is a reason a criminal is called a criminal... Its because they have no intention of complying with a law. If they have no intention of complying with a law, then how does that law protect those who comply with it?

In the end the very law designed to protect and make society safer is responsible for the deaths of the people who obeyed the law in the first place.

reply to post by nenothtu


I'm referring to robber-barron anti-trust sherman act sort of concepts. And when things aren't stopped from being manopolies there ceases to be any competition so first the prices get fixed while the market itself gets robbed. Otherwise I hope you like playing rollerball.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by METACOMET

 

The Swiss are a good example of sensible gun laws working, as are many of the Scandinavian countries. Those people seem to get along fine with very little gun crime or mass murder on a regular basis.. With the exception of what happened in Norway last year. Maybe there are deeper social problems within the U.S, particularly amongst young people..

Scandnavian countries and their gun control laws are not a model to use to be honest. Its entirely possible 77 children would not have had to die from the wingnut on his shooting spree had the police on the island been armed. The body count might not have been that high had the police not had to wait for authorization to go back to the station to get their guns, which required approval from command staff first.

It is hard to envision a cop without a gun and beating stick. And yes a cop without a gun might as well be a minimum wage security officer like one found in a shopping mall.