America "Do Not Let CT Amend Our Constitutiion."

People in the UK accept they have no political control.

People in the US THINK they can have political control, but its designed to trick them.

Atleast the US still has a system which can be fixed, even if it is corrupt head to toe. The UK bows down to the European Union President and just goes about pretending the economic chaos is just bad luck, not a controlled demolition to transfer wealth from the middle class to the rich.

The constitution is losing importance only because its people have given up their power for security. If it was actually followed, the large corporations which own our country would have been stopped along time ago. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans are becoming like the British, just accept life for what it is and let the banks take over.

The top 1/10% wage earners have doubled-tripled their wealth since the 2008 crash. Its all a game. The constitution can be utilized by the people to stop this, but it takes far more guts and determination than the majority currently display.

Originally posted by tehdouglas
People in the UK accept they have no political control.

People in the US THINK they can have political control, but its designed to trick them.

Atleast the US still has a system which can be fixed, even if it is corrupt head to toe. The UK bows down to the European Union President and just goes about pretending the economic chaos is just bad luck, not a controlled demolition to transfer wealth from the middle class to the rich.

The UK doesn't 'bow down' in any sense, this is just nonsense fantasy. The UK recently elected a completely different government and has undergone significant political change, with more likely in 2015. You don't know what you are talking about.

The constitution is losing importance only because its people have given up their power for security. If it was actually followed, the large corporations which own our country would have been stopped along time ago.

Care to point out the part of the constitution which would allow this?

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans are becoming like the British, just accept life for what it is and let the banks take over.

What banking reforms have you put in place? Would you like to see a list of ours?

The top 1/10% wage earners have doubled-tripled their wealth since the 2008 crash. Its all a game. The constitution can be utilized by the people to stop this, but it takes far more guts and determination than the majority currently display.

This is the only part I won't disagree with you on. Income inequality is a serious issue in both countries. Guess which country has a worse Gini Coefficient.

reply to post by exponent


Eh.. lots of stuff gets by when you have an ignorant majority and then 9/11 to panic them.

You cannot defend yourself. Your people could not defend themselves.
If something happens and you end up with rioting on your streets, or looters in your neighborhood, no power and no police. You will regret your predicament. Blackout or natural disaster are just 2 feasible scenarios in which it would be beneficial to have a semi auto weapon with a higher capacity.

reply to post by tehdouglas


A portion of the US is working their damnedest to take it back. The libertarians and what will likely become the libertary party (libertarians, dems, revolution republicans, and indies) are doing everything they can.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by exponent

 

You cannot defend yourself. Your people could not defend themselves.

We have armed forces for that, some of the best in the world. If they turned against citizens then no amount of firearms is going to bring down a Typhoon, or take out a guided missile submarine, or perhaps stop a mortar round.

The idea that guns provide you with safety from the state should be obviously false, look at Syria for example. The UK and US armies are way more advanced than the Syrian army and do you really think that outcome is something you want to face?

If something happens and you end up with rioting on your streets, or looters in your neighborhood, no power and no police. You will regret your predicament. Blackout or natural disaster are just 2 feasible scenarios in which it would be beneficial to have a semi auto weapon with a higher capacity.

No, it wouldn't be beneficial, because within an hour or so of looting and housebreaking, criminals would likely have just the same weapons or better. On the contrary I can own a shotgun quite legally and these are much better weapons for self defence, they require adequate gun safes and so restrict the weapons criminals can easily get access to.

Why is it so much to ask that people do a little research into the results of firearm bans in the UK. Perhaps listen to our police who would not arm themselves if given the choice. That's how safe it is here.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by exponent

 

Eh.. lots of stuff gets by when you have an ignorant majority and then 9/11 to panic them.

You cannot defend yourself. Your people could not defend themselves.
If something happens and you end up with rioting on your streets, or looters in your neighborhood, no power and no police. You will regret your predicament. Blackout or natural disaster are just 2 feasible scenarios in which it would be beneficial to have a semi auto weapon with a higher capacity.

5 people died in the riots last year, one was gun related. How many more do you think would have died if we had relaxed gun ownership?

Ugh, I went through 6 pages to see if the op would answer exponents slavery argument and he successfully avoided it. Darn.

reply to post by exponent


See in this situation you really are showing ignorance. You cannot rely on armed forced for that rype of thing. Look at katrina. You think armed forces could help you? There is no way. There would have to be a soldier with every family. Its also naive to think that a nation armed couldn't overthrow a military. It's happened many times in the last few years and yes those instances in the mideast are compareable. Just because our countries posess intense and sophisticated weapons doesn't mean they could use them against the people. If they did it would just prove the rebelling forces point.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by exponent

 

See in this situation you really are showing ignorance. You cannot rely on armed forced for that rype of thing. Look at katrina. You think armed forces could help you? There is no way. There would have to be a soldier with every family.

So you need guns to protect yourself from the number of guns you have? You don't see how this is a self defeating point? We have better gun security and fewer guns, therefore I don't need the military to protect me in such a situation. The police are more than sufficient.

Its also naive to think that a nation armed couldn't overthrow a military. It's happened many times in the last few years and yes those instances in the mideast are compareable. Just because our countries posess intense and sophisticated weapons doesn't mean they could use them against the people. If they did it would just prove the rebelling forces point.

Proving a point means absolutely nothing. Can you name a single takeover of a modern army by a populace using their existing weapons in the 'last few years'? Syria's army is hardly modern and if you haven't noticed most of the heavier weapons they're using were taken from said army.

An AK47 will not destroy a tank. Hell an RPG won't destroy a modern British tank. What exactly do you think you're going to do when 40 roll into your town? Shout about how you are morally vindicated?

reply to post by exponent


I have to say....you have "kicked arse" in this thread.....and although my statement may sound immature, I thank you for your contribution. It's been a pleasure to read your informative, logical and fact based responses

Originally posted by Logos23
reply to post by exponent

 

I have to say....you have "kicked arse" in this thread.....and although my statement may sound immature, I thank you for your contribution. It's been a pleasure to read your informative, logical and fact based responses

Thanks man, much appreciated. It seems that people are just starting new threads instead of participating in current ones. Perhaps that's because they don't like their beliefs challenged by the reality of life outside the US.

reply to post by kingsquirel

Originally posted by milominderbinder

The USA is not #1 in anything positive. Education, economic equality, democracy, health care... in everything worth being proud about America is beaten by several other nations, but so many Americans seem to think they are automatically world leader in all these respects! Where does this "America is the greatest" delusion come from?

It's a by-product of the Cold-War era brainwashing and our failed educational system. On behalf of all Americans...please accept my apologies for our endemic state of willful ignorance which we live in. It's embarrassing...but I won't try to pretend that it doesn't exist. What I wouldn't give to live in a country of sane people...you are very fortunate.

I wouldn't say I live in a country of sane people, far from it. But I hate the arrogance with which Americans think their nation is so amazing.

I'm often accused of being an "American hater" in threads where I speak my mind about the USA, but the fact is I regularly verbally assault all nations that are hypocrites and have a warped view of their own country.

I debate with fellow Brits on here about the state of the UK, I've debated with others about Spain, China, Russia, Israel, Ireland, North Korea... People can label me an American hater for my views, but it doesn't change the recorded facts that while Americans chant "USA! USA! USA!" like drunk frat boys and claim to be the leaders in everything from economy to education, they are FAR from it.

The defence of an outdated and irrelevant scrap of paper like the Second Amendment is the same to me as the Taliban using the excuse of religious text to behead people in the town square.

Iran uses historical documents and religious BS to defend their tradition of stoning women and hanging gay people.

America uses the outdated and irrelevant aspects of the constitution to defend their right to own something they do not need and will never use, at the cost of thousands of innocent lives every year.

Thanks for the comments, but I just wanted to point out that I am critical of all nations that are hypocrites as and when I see it. It's not exclusively the USA, but as this discussion is about the idiocy of the American public when it comes to their "rights" to kill hundreds of people a minute it seemed relevant to the discussion

Banning guns in the U.S.A. will do more harm than good. Looking at history as well as current events shows that banning any one thing only drives up the value on the black market. That of course makes it very profitable for criminals. We once had laws banning alcohol. Those laws created much chaos in this country. They made Al Capone a very rich man and led to the deaths of many people. In fact if you look at the statistics I think you will find that mass killings were much more prevalent in those times than they are now. Our current prohibition on marijuana and other drugs has given much power to the drug cartels in Mexico and other parts of Latin America. Banning firearms here will only serve to create more wealth and power for those same criminals while disarming the law abiding citizen. This would leave homes defenseless.The U.S.A. has never seen an invasion of our homeland by any other nation. This largely due to the fact that any invading army would not only have to face our military, but our militia which consists of every man and woman that can fight. Japan refused to invade for fear of a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by tehdouglas
People in the UK accept they have no political control.

People in the US THINK they can have political control, but its designed to trick them.

Atleast the US still has a system which can be fixed, even if it is corrupt head to toe. The UK bows down to the European Union President and just goes about pretending the economic chaos is just bad luck, not a controlled demolition to transfer wealth from the middle class to the rich.

The UK doesn't 'bow down' in any sense, this is just nonsense fantasy. The UK recently elected a completely different government and has undergone significant political change, with more likely in 2015. You don't know what you are talking about.

The constitution is losing importance only because its people have given up their power for security. If it was actually followed, the large corporations which own our country would have been stopped along time ago.

Care to point out the part of the constitution which would allow this?

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans are becoming like the British, just accept life for what it is and let the banks take over.

What banking reforms have you put in place? Would you like to see a list of ours?

The top 1/10% wage earners have doubled-tripled their wealth since the 2008 crash. Its all a game. The constitution can be utilized by the people to stop this, but it takes far more guts and determination than the majority currently display.

This is the only part I won't disagree with you on. Income inequality is a serious issue in both countries. Guess which country has a worse Gini Coefficient.

Thanks Ex, for tending to my thread while I was away. I see your still posting one liners, and did you ever come up with that constitution of yours yet?

Originally posted by kingsquirel

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by tehdouglas
People in the UK accept they have no political control.

People in the US THINK they can have political control, but its designed to trick them.

Atleast the US still has a system which can be fixed, even if it is corrupt head to toe. The UK bows down to the European Union President and just goes about pretending the economic chaos is just bad luck, not a controlled demolition to transfer wealth from the middle class to the rich.

The UK doesn't 'bow down' in any sense, this is just nonsense fantasy. The UK recently elected a completely different government and has undergone significant political change, with more likely in 2015. You don't know what you are talking about.

The constitution is losing importance only because its people have given up their power for security. If it was actually followed, the large corporations which own our country would have been stopped along time ago.

Care to point out the part of the constitution which would allow this?

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans are becoming like the British, just accept life for what it is and let the banks take over.

What banking reforms have you put in place? Would you like to see a list of ours?

The top 1/10% wage earners have doubled-tripled their wealth since the 2008 crash. Its all a game. The constitution can be utilized by the people to stop this, but it takes far more guts and determination than the majority currently display.

This is the only part I won't disagree with you on. Income inequality is a serious issue in both countries. Guess which country has a worse Gini Coefficient.

Thanks Ex, for tending to my thread while I was away. I see your still posting one liners, and did you ever come up with that constitution of yours yet?

All of my facepalms

Originally posted by bknapple32
Ugh, I went through 6 pages to see if the op would answer exponents slavery argument and he successfully avoided it. Darn.

In reference to "Slavery," the term has a plethora of layers to it's definition. Such as:

1) Indentured servitude; was a form of debt bondage, established in the early years of the American colonies. Farmers, planters, and shopkeepers in the colonies found it very difficult to hire free workers, primarily because it was so easy for potential workers to set up their own farms.[1] Consequently, a common solution was to transport a young worker from England or Germany, who would work for several years to pay off the debt of their travel costs. During the indenture period the servants were not paid wages, but were provided with food, accommodation, clothing and training. The indenture document specified how many years the servant would be required to work, after which they would be freeI (Wiki)

2) Fiefdom; 1. The estate or domain of a feudal lord.
2. Something over which one dominant person or group exercises control:

3) Many more arbritrary definitions that could have been collaberated with the term "slavery.'

Thus, the American Constitution since being instituted at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, has set the precedence of all Global North capatilistic Democracies, which ultimately should not be ratified because of hostile acts by individuals.

Enough said

Originally posted by kingsquirel
Thus, the American Constitution since being instituted at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, has set the precedence of all Global North capatilistic Democracies, which ultimately should not be ratified because of hostile acts by individuals.

Enough said

Once again you make absolutely no sense. Your constitution did not abolish slavery: en.wikipedia.org...

Do you know nothing about your nation? Slaves who made it to England were pretty much already free even before 1776, nevermind the Philidelphia Convention.

Ignorance and arrogance, the stereotype of the American is being borne out by you here. Please take your time and learn the facts about this matter. It's better for everyone involved.

Originally posted by kingsquirel

Originally posted by bknapple32
Ugh, I went through 6 pages to see if the op would answer exponents slavery argument and he successfully avoided it. Darn.

In reference to "Slavery," the term has a plethora of layers to it's definition. Such as:

1) Indentured servitude; was a form of debt bondage, established in the early years of the American colonies. Farmers, planters, and shopkeepers in the colonies found it very difficult to hire free workers, primarily because it was so easy for potential workers to set up their own farms.[1] Consequently, a common solution was to transport a young worker from England or Germany, who would work for several years to pay off the debt of their travel costs. During the indenture period the servants were not paid wages, but were provided with food, accommodation, clothing and training. The indenture document specified how many years the servant would be required to work, after which they would be freeI (Wiki)

2) Fiefdom; 1. The estate or domain of a feudal lord.
2. Something over which one dominant person or group exercises control:

3) Many more arbritrary definitions that could have been collaberated with the term "slavery.'

Thus, the American Constitution since being instituted at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, has set the precedence of all Global North capatilistic Democracies, which ultimately should not be ratified because of hostile acts by individuals.

Enough said

Enough said? There are a lot of words there but nothing was actually said. Nice try. You do realize that slavery as well as counting slaves as only 3/5 of a person is enshrined in the constitution don't you? We didn't end slavery until December 1865 by amending the constitution. Let me just clear this up, I love guns. I want to be on your side. You make it very difficult to even moderately entertain your illogical notions when you don't seem to grasp the most basic of facts let alone grammar.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by peter vlar
To Exponent I would add that the US constitution while borrowing some ideas from the Magna Carta it was much more Influenced by the Iroquois confederation. Just thought I'd throw that out there since everyone continues to bandy on about the lack of historical knowledge or context.

Thank you for intelligently commenting, I just wanted to illustrate how ancient the Magna Carta was, it's true the US has many influences and I would be a fool to deny that their reforms are good. You reformed the right to have counsel a few years before we did, for example.

It's pretty hilarious to see someone claim you 'stopped slavery' though. With all the good intentions in the world your country segregated black people even during a war where they were fighting for you. It's pretty disgusting in retrospect.

Thanks again for actually contributing.

I wish I could agree with you on the hilarity of this. It's actually quite sad and shows that our education system over here is sorely in need or review and refurbishing. The disinformation spouted simply thru repetition of ignorance is mind boggling to say the least. I may have a different point of view as you on guns but thank you as we'll for your informative posts that hopefully will lead twosome people engaging in due diligence and reading up on history for themselves.