Printable View
I'm afraid I am unable to get past the notion that I consider gun ownership wholly unnecessary, and the fact of its being seen by anyone as an inalienable right utterly alien. The ideas that Jag_Warrior has put forward strike me as eminently sensible, but I would hope that they or their like would represent a first step towards weaning people off guns. That, to me, is the only truly desirable end result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Well, fortunately those of us that do live in this country and do believe in such rights and do not feel any such weaning is either necessary or desirable are protected by the document that ultimately governs our country. Actually, more than one of my replies today were made while at the range with my son and my .40, my latest AR, a vintage browning auto loader and a case of skeet. Quite an enjoyable day keeping the skills sharp. Only downside was having to wait almost 30 minutes for an open bench at the rifle range. No one was harmed in the exercise of my rights ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Just a question, earlier on this thread it was mentioned that there should be a law saying that somebody who has had or has a mental illness would be prohibited from owing a firearm. Does that mean people are not going to come out that they are suffering a mental illness because of the fact that if they do come out it will mean they will never be able to own a gun?
Possibly, however that is already the case. Anyone that has been committed to a mental institution is prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Many jurisdictions already require such persons to surrender all firearms. In my state this also applies to persons that have had a cIvil protective order against them, regardless of whether criminal charges are ever filed. They don't get their firearms back as long as the protective order is in place. It is the questionable legality of reporting a medical condition to the government where no current evidence of criminal or violent behavior. That is a privacy issue that will have to be resolved legally and socially.Quote:
Originally Posted by leighton323
well if you want to take guns from criminals you could try a "Drugs for Gun" program. The feds have a lot of drugs they could trade.
While I can well understand why shooting is an enjoyable activity for those who practice it, I am delighted that none of my day has been spent doing anything connected with protecting my own safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Dang! I would swipe my oozie for a pound of punto rojo!
Might have a gun or two I might take atrade for some herbal pain relief. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
It's was as much to relieve stress and continue to ensure my ability to feed my family as much to protect myself. Ducks fly damn fast so I have to stay sharp and while I don't routinely hunt with my AR, I have bagged a nice meaty 8pt whitetail with one. It's just prudent to stay proficient with any firearm one owns. It'll be three different ones at the range this weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
That's why we're Americans, not just in name, but in attitude. That attitude was born partially in England's treatment of the colonies. (Also see India, Kenya, etc.) It also probably has a lot to do with why we had to pull England's bacon out of the fire a couple of times. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
So, because you hold one (unrealistic) idealistic stance, the rest of the world must fall into step with you or you're not going to play? Rigid thoughts and behaviors are nice in a text book and idealism sometimes has it's day for a bit, but in the end pragmatism rules the world.
Your knowledge of Hispanic food exceeds your knowledge of Israeli weaponry. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Uzi
Too much punto rojo perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
An attitude that, I have to tell you, is hardly well-liked the world over. It's also, I feel, rather presumptuous for you to suggest that there is an 'American attitude' as though this is somehow shared by all your countrymen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Something of zero practical relevance now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Er, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
If so, pragmatism has, in the vast majority of countries, still allowed people to go about their lives in suitable safety without the need to bear arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Now I'm a bit of a reverse isolationist, I think we should just seal off the US and let them resolve the gun ownership issue without external interference - will the last man standing please send an e-mail to let the rest of us know when to come and disarm him ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
May I correct 2 glaring inaccuracies though
Britain's treatment of their colonies in the 20th C cannot be said to be analogous to the response in the late 18th C when tax-dodging entrepreneurs thought up a wizard jape to get richer - form a new country. As I see it the US has been ploughing this furrow ever since!
As for 'pulling our bacon out of the fire' a couple of times - so you blinking well should have, in return for us not intervening on the side of the Confederacy! ;)
The standard British reply to this old chestnut contains the words: late, self-interest, seeking allies to legitimise its own interests, expensive reparations, historically anti-British and Ol Joe Kennedy. Feel free to arrange these words in a set of phrases that accurately represents US popular attitudes towards Britain through the late 19th and first half of the 20th Centuries.
BDunnel, I have been away from this for a while. I come back and see nothing has changed. You keep going on about how the attitudes of Americans about guns are "alien" to you, and how you don't understand how people can "live in fear", etc.
Why can't you see that your attitude is utterly alien to us? That we think it is incomprehensible that you live in such fear of guns that you must beg your governments to take them away from you? Why can't you see that despite some great tragedies, that LEGAL gun ownership in this country is completely safe, that the chances of this sort of tragedy happening is less than the chances of being struck by lightning? Why is it so hard for you to allow us to live our lives? Why must you force your morals on us?
Ask me if I care how well we are liked or not. I'm pretty sure I won't lose any sleep over it no matter whether we're liked or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
True, but failure to know and understand history leads to many missteps, both in a micro and macro sense.Quote:
Something of zero practical relevance now.
Well duh, that's what we've been trying to tell you for lo these many pages now. One size does not fit all and we do what we need to do for our time and society. We fully understand you're happy the way you are. Good for you. Please note that no one over here is lobbying for you to change to our way. (Hint, hint)Quote:
If so, pragmatism has, in the vast majority of countries, still allowed people to go about their lives in suitable safety without the need to bear arms.
Thank you. I'll buy that. We'll be able to pull all our troops and aid programs home and save a whole bunch of tax money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintexmemory
I was referring to the insurrections which followed the rather heavy handed rule of the Empire.Quote:
May I correct 2 glaring inaccuracies though
Britain's treatment of their colonies in the 20th C cannot be said to be analogous to the response in the late 18th C when tax-dodging entrepreneurs thought up a wizard jape to get richer - form a new country. As I see it the US has been ploughing this furrow ever since!
You should have done that, as your factories didn't "cotton" to the idea of paying more for raw materials. Or was it your fondness, as a nation, for our home grown drug tobacco?Quote:
As for 'pulling our bacon out of the fire' a couple of times - so you blinking well should have, in return for us not intervening on the side of the Confederacy! ;)
It's our entrepreneurial spirit. Invest in something now for huge returns later. ;)Quote:
The standard British reply to this old chestnut contains the words: late, self-interest, seeking allies to legitimise its own interests, expensive reparations, historically anti-British and Ol Joe Kennedy. Feel free to arrange these words in a set of phrases that accurately represents US popular attitudes towards Britain through the late 19th and first half of the 20th Centuries.
I for one live absent of fear in my own very well protected home....
As far as our American attitude... Many of us really could care less what folks think of our attitude or our laws. Our laws are OUR laws, no one elses and that is what matters to us. Personally I wish we would mind our own damn business more often, if others would do the same. I feel no obligation what so ever to amend our laws to pander to outside interests so outsiders feel safe. We'll decide what makes us feel safe and how we we accomplish that within our laws. Unfortunately, when a country has been attacked, not everyone is going to like the response.
Why can't I see any of this? Because nothing anyone has said will ever change my view of guns. And because, when all is said and done, it is very easy for many a European to feel a sense of moral superiority over many a gun-toting American, a breed most vividly represented by the likes of anthonyvop, someone with whom any right-minded person ought almost always to find themselves in disagreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
As for the last two sentences of the quote above, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I have some sort of authority over you, when all I'm doing is voicing an opinion with which you happen to disagree. This is not a case of 'forcing my morals on you'. It's merely a suggestion that lives might better be lived without guns.
You mean 'couldn't care less', surely?Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
And there's part of the problem in any such discussion. For an American to be critical of others merely for making suggestions relating to domestic matters will always bring about accusations of hypocrisy given the recent record of your country under successive administrations of both colours.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Any perceptive citizen or commentator ought always to consider, rather than reject out of hand on grounds of tradition, examples of policy from elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
What relevance does that have here?Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Well, I'm glad you're happy with years of belligerent foreign policy, and with the typical view abroad of the equally bellicose, poorly-educated American, ignorant of goings-on outside their own country's borders. Easy stereotypes, yes, but not without a grain of truth in them, and neither exactly something of which to be proud. If anyone is in any doubt as to why outsiders seek to tell you how we feel you should live your lives in terms of gun ownership, this impression of Americans is directly relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
There is a difference between knowing and understanding history and allowing it to shape policy unnecessarily. And, surely, if one claims to 'understand history', one thing it tells you is that guns, in a practical sense, do not represent a 'force for good'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
That thought makes me sad for you. I sincerely hope you have no friends or family that would ever have to depend on you for protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
That's fine and dandy. Now tell me why you must continually spout your "morally superior" attitude as if we Americans must somehow see that as the right answer for us? Clearly we do not, as evidenced by the many pages on this thread, the thousands of others on other similar topics, and the 200+ years of your detested "gun culture".Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Why do you feel a sense of moral superiority? Isn't that exactly what you always claim makes the "typical right-wing American" so distasteful in your mind? Remind me again why you are trying to force us (sure you'll say suggest) to legislate your morals? Why can't you just let us live the way we feel is right for us?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
It sure is forcing your morals on us (at least in the internet forum sense). 48+ pages of mostly you belaboring the point that if you had your way, you would outlaw all guns. For you to not be forcing your morals on us, you would simply say something to the effect of "What a horrible tragedy, my thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims. I wish these type of things wouldn't happen again", and leave it at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Thank God you do not have any authority over us.
And you have done nothing to dispel the stereotype of the typical snobbish, self-centered, pseudo-intellectual European that looks down their nose at anything American.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Do I really need to start posting stories again? For every tragedy of a mass shooting there are probably hundreds of stories about a person or family saving themselves and their property from violent criminals by using a gun. How is that not a "force for good"?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
...and let all that lovely ME oil be controlled by the Russian mafia and admit that the 'War on Terror' is nothing more than the sham its opponents have claimed all along!! You Yanks and your obsession with tax :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
The Mau Mau 'rebellion' was hardly a coherent independence movement and the 'unrest' in India was nothing like an insurrection. (Though it may have turned into that had Mountbatten been less pragmatic)Quote:
I was referring to the insurrections which followed the rather heavy handed rule of the Empire.
Actually it was the first example of the US chucking its weight around. Seward implying that the US would support Scots and Irish independence movements if the UK showed any support for the Confederacy. As to the second point, it was more a fondness for US grain, without which the UK would have experienced a famine, that mitigated against Confederacy support. Still at least Lincoln had the good sense to resolve the Trent affair sensibly!Quote:
You should have done that, as your factories didn't "cotton" to the idea of paying more for raw materials. Or was it your fondness, as a nation, for our home grown drug tobacco?
Britain's example has served as a warning to other countries ever since:Quote:
It's our entrepreneurial spirit. Invest in something now for huge returns later. ;)
UK "As you're now in it with us and we've maintained opposition in Asia and Europe for 3 years how about some help"
US " Sure, that'll cost you all UK business assets and patents in the US and your gold reserves"
UK " Err, thanks (pause to count fingers after shaking hands)"
Anyway as this is not a thread on UK-US foreign relations I'll not bandy words further sirrah.
Yeah, we are obsessed with individuals keeping their hard earned money, providing for ourselves and own, and not being endlessly taxed by an overly intrusive government, onlt to see those taxes wasted on supporting corrupt regimes, unpopular and unnecessary foreign wars and wasteful dysfucntional domestic programs for the unmotivated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintexmemory
Oh, spare us the victim mentality. In no way do I look down my nose at 'anything American' — rather, I look down my nose at certain attitudes typical of a particular section of the American populace, just as I do certain attitudes typical of a particular section of the British populace. And is there nothing in your eyes between 'ignorant' and 'pseudo-intellectual'?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Strange we don't need them, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Makes you sad for me? Ought you not to be happy that I don't feel the need to, or are you really so desperate to feel insecure?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
To be honest, it's not hard to feel a sense of moral superiority over a gun-loving American.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Again, I say that all I'm doing is offering an opinion. If I had any sort of legislative power over you, you'd have a point, but I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Rubbish. Offering an opinion is not 'forcing your morals' on someone. I don't feel like you're forcing your morals on me, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Those are interesting words. I believe you should say them again, loudly and with unwavering gaze -- as you stand in front of a mirror.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Then why can't you leave this subject alone? Why can't you accept that not everyone will think like you? Why is your opinion the only "valid" one, the only one that has the "moral high ground", the only one that doesn't conjure up contempt from the "more enlightened"?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
No one in the US is forced to have a gun. If someone feels as you do, that they are so damn scared of guns, they do not have to own one. That is their right, just as much as it is my right to buy one for whatever reason I feel. So I'll ask again, why would you seek to legislate your morals on me?
Since you like to point out others typos and grammar errors, perhaps you might want to put "quotation" marks there.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Why? I was merely pointing out why Americans will always be open to a certain type of criticism when they adopt an isolationist approach. Nothing more than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Pardon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Don't look now, but with recent discoveries we may be a net exporter of energy soon. Then you'll have a choice - deal with the arabs, the Russians or us. That'll keep you up nights. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mintexmemory
Kept you guys minding your own business didn't it? Not a bad outcome.Quote:
Actually it was the first example of the US chucking its weight around. Seward implying that the US would support Scots and Irish independence movements if the UK showed any support for the Confederacy. As to the second point, it was more a fondness for US grain, without which the UK would have experienced a famine, that mitigated against Confederacy support. Still at least Lincoln had the good sense to resolve the Trent affair sensibly!
And, above all, who cares?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
I understand your concerns about expanding the prison population, but especially for white collar offenders (who believe that if they get a paper cut, it is a "war wound"), I believe that the very real prospect of mandatory jail terms would be a very effective deterrent. I used to have a VERY heavy right foot while driving. But after having a nice "chat" with a traffic court judge (and him asking me if I liked to walk - what? huh? walk?! :eek :) , I decided that possibly losing my license was reason enough to slow down. So yes, deterrents can work... for some people. For those who are too thick to discontinue their criminal behavior, they wind up in prison cages for a few decades - but society is protected from them. And that's the most important thing, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The culture that we have, where firearms ownership is rather normal, is most certainly a factor. I would never deny that. And it's not that I'm ignoring or neglecting to address that. But making suggestions which would change an entire culture is something which is WAY above my "pay grade". Quite simply, I have no idea how to (practically) do that. So I am addressing the most practical ideas which come to my mind which should reduce firearms related violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
In what I do in real life (usually focused on increasing productivity and profits and/or reducing variation and defects within processes), I often run into situations where there is a "corporate culture", which is not so friendly or willing to change. Now, I can get people fired if they show themselves to be hard roadblocks to progress - that tends to get messy and creates unnecessary political fights. But in the case of a nation of 300 million people, it would be pretty hard to get people to change their way of thinking based on the threat of "firing" them... or putting all legal gun owners in jail if they would not conform. Reported firearms ownership (legal) in the U.S. now stands at roughly 50%... and it's growing, not shrinking. So IMO, attempting to (truly) change that culture of thought or shift that paradigm would require a massive and messy effort. Hell, we can't even agree to pass a budget in Congress right now. This would be like setting off a nuclear weapon in D.C. and all across the nation.
"When the enemy is too strong, the only way to 'win' is to deny the battle."
Exactly. And that's why I'm trying to restrict most of this to people who (I believe we can ALL agree) should not be in possession of firearms. Not AK's, AR's, shotguns, .22 rifles or even a single round of ammunition. Surely to goodness, this is something that we can all agree to! Now that pretty much every pro-gun person on here has conceded on several (somewhat) risky propositions, those who had only thought in terms of complete bans (which is completely unworkable and impractical here) can agree that taking a hard line on criminals, and those who fund and further criminal activity, is right and proper. If that is not the case, then I truly don't know what to say. At that point, they seem to me to be very much like the inflexible TEA Party folks who are in our Congress now. And considering that they are probably polar opposites politically, that is an interesting realization.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
I would hope that people are not driven underground, any more than they already are. I have a situation in my family right now that is along these lines and it really hurts my heart that I cannot get this person to admit that they have a problem and get help. But unless the courts become involved at some point, I've done as much as I can (legally) do. But if he ever tried to get a firearm, as much as it would cause major issues within my family, I would step in and do whatever was necessary to prevent that. Unlike that idiot woman in Connecticut, I sure as hell wouldn't take him out and teach him how to shoot the thing! I hope they buried her on her head so that she's ass up for all of eternity!Quote:
Originally Posted by leighton323
But no, I would like to see people come up with ideas for reforming the mental health system here too, so that people who need help can be better helped.
Don't really mean to single you out necessarily Mintex', but "Us Yanks" a term you will never hear an American use to describe himself are quite a diverse group. In the USA we are taxed at the State and to a lesser degree on the County, and City level for , income, property, sales and other forms in varying degrees. In some States that put a higher value on the health and well being of all of its residents we are taxed higher on the State, and Civil level than the Federal level in the great Republic of The United States of America. We pay it and some of us find a little extra to give to charity for orphans, the poor, or civil rights. Some give a little donation to the NRA above membership dues, and some donate to the NRA as well as some of the charitable organizations I mentioned. Quit referring to "us yanks" we are not a certain type of people and our laws vary dramatically from State to State. But if a foreign entity, or entities piss us off enough to get about 80% of us “]we’ll jack up all ya’ all!! [/B]Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintexmemory
In the famous words of Abraham Lincoln which I suspect many of my own countrymen have never even read:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn1gheckr70Quote:
All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected.
The question recurs, "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty.
When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made.--I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay; but, till then, let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.
But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible,
- Abraham Lincoln
I contest that the Second Amendment is a bad law and in the words of Mr Lincoln "should be repealed as soon as possible". A law which results in death on such a wide scale, can not be held up as "good".
As do many Americans including myself, however The people of the U.S.A are responsible for repealing it, and as Mr Lincoln said:
"still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed".
Now personally as an American and damn proud of it, I am not for trampling on The Constitution of the United States of America because I don't agree with it in its entirety! As a country of free men we must respect the rights, and restrictions provided their-in or change them. You my friend only have an opinion in this matter and don’t forget that! ;)