I will probably be banned for this, but...shooting thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Another straw man argument.

---

BS. His example is fully valid. Unless ofcourse you don't want to accept it. And your knee jerk reaction proves it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

The US is not Australia ...

---

That much we all figured out on our own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

...and, though I profess ignorance of Aussie prior law,...

---

Then why even make a comment on it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Collecting 700K guns would be a drop in the bucket compared to the total in the US.

---

Ever heard about proportions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

And, yes, it is accepted in the US by a large majority of people. That's why various proposed gun control laws keep getting voted down. Also why more and more states are relaxing existing laws.

---

Let's be honest, we have nothing against you shooting each other as long as you keep it for yourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Another straw man argument.

---

What you mean is 'an argument with which I disagree'. Two very different things. What Rollo posted is far from a 'straw-man argument'. Read this sentence: 'The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."' In what sense can you — having, I presume, not undertaken a detailed study of the matter yourself — just dismiss the findings of said study?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Collecting 700K guns would be a drop in the bucket compared to the total in the US.

---

And as a percentage of total numbers of guns held in the country, how does it fare then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Let's be honest, we have nothing against you shooting each other as long as you keep it for yourselves.

---

Only if we have scant regard for human life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Another straw man argument. The US is not Australia and, though I profess ignorance of Aussie prior law, I don't believe Australia had relatively lax gun control before the period you quoted. Collecting 700K guns would be a drop in the bucket compared to the total in the US. And, yes, it is accepted in the US by a large majority of people.

---

You're right, which is why you look at per capita rates. Obviously 700,000 guns is "a drop in the bucket compared to the total in the US". You're also correct that Australia didn't have lax gun control laws before the period quoted; even if you look at the period before 1996, per capita injury and death rates were still far far lower in Australia.

It's hardly a straw man argument, when you asserted that my stance "flies in the face of reality" and I went and proved otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

That's why various proposed gun control laws keep getting voted down. Also why more and more states are relaxing existing laws.

---

No. Gun control laws keep on getting voted down in the United States because guns are so entrenched in your culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

No. A completely true statement that is backed with the weight of evidence.

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the Australian Government via a buy back scheme took 700,000 guns out of society.

News | The University of Sydney
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

Gun deaths halved in past 10 years - www.theage.com.au
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Australia which has far tighter gun control and which engaged in a mass buy back has a gun-related death rate which is 14.7 times lower per 100,000 people.
Having been down this road before, I can't actually make a convincing argument because it isn't accepted. What is accepted and apparently acceptable is 14.7 times the number of dead Americans as a result of guns per 100,000 people. What's also accepted is a health care system which has to cope with accidents and injuries up and down the land. America as a nation has found it acceptable to wear these costs through increased health insurance premiums.

---

But that's Australia, a whole different country. Therefore your Aussie examples don't count, in exactly the same manner that everyone wants to dismiss any example from Switzerland. I'm calling "different circumstances". So you can't use Austrailian examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

I wasn't talking about me. I was talking generally. When there's no chance, some people do prefer to live instead of dying. In 5 card stud poker, would you go against three aces with king high?

---

So Liberty and Freedom are things to be gambled away to you? Again telling, very telling.

A puzzle is begining to come into focus with each and every piece (as if it wasn't already). Eki doesn't believe in any absolute rights, liberties, or freedoms. He only accepts what a stonger person tells him are his rights and liberties. That and what Wikipedia tells him.

Tell me Eki, assume for a minute that you would have had the unfortunate "privledge" of being an African, plucked from you peaceful existance on the planes of Africa, to be shipped to work on a Plantation in Gerogia, would you have just been a "good little worker"? I mean afterall you had no chance, why not just fold your cards?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

No. Gun control laws keep on getting voted down in the United States because guns are so entrenched in your culture.

---

Yes they are. And what the hell is wrong with that? We, Americans, keep being told over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again (and in many circumstances rightfully so) that we should just keep our noses out of other people's business. That we "don't understand" other cultures. That we "don't live the way others do". That we "have no right to tell others how to live".

So why the hell are all you Europeans and Aussies, etc. telling us Americans how to live now? What gives you the right? You don't understand our culture, by your own admission. You don't live the way we do. You have no right to tell us how to live. Why are gun laws in the US any of your business?

If I feel I need a gun for protection, why do you feel that you know my situation better than I do?

If I feel I need a gun to ward off an oppressive, or even the threat of an oppressive government, why do think you know better?

If I feel like going to a range and shooting at some targets, who are you to tell me I can't do that?

If you live in the US and don't want to own a gun, no one is forcing you to. So how does someone leagally owning one, for any reason, infringe upon you, your rights, or your liberties?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Yes they are. And what the hell is wrong with that? We, Americans, keep being told over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again (and in many circumstances rightfully so) that we should just keep our noses out of other people's business. That we "don't understand" other cultures. That we "don't live the way others do". That we "have no right to tell others how to live".

So why the hell are all you Europeans and Aussies, etc. telling us Americans how to live now? What gives you the right? You don't understand our culture, by your own admission. You don't live the way we do. You have no right to tell us how to live. Why are gun laws in the US any of your business?

If I feel I need a gun for protection, why do you feel that you know my situation better than I do?

If I feel I need a gun to ward off an oppressive, or even the threat of an oppressive government, why do think you know better?

If I feel like going to a range and shooting at some targets, who are you to tell me I can't do that?

If you live in the US and don't want to own a gun, no one is forcing you to. So how does someone leagally owning one, for any reason, infringe upon you, your rights, or your liberties?

---

My overriding reaction to this is: what a demonstration of victim mentality.

Also, you fail, Chuck, to grasp one essential difference between those who object to America imposing itself around the world and those here who are against the American gun laws. Those who say the US should, as you put it, 'keep our noses out of other people's business' are objecting to years of policy on the part of successive US administrations, some of whose foreign policy adventures have been deeply counterproductive to global security. All those of us here who object to US gun laws are doing is voicing our opinion against one law and the basis for it. We are entitled to do so, and will go on doing so. This is totally unconnected to any criticism of US foreign policy, except for the extent to which I believe there exists in sections of US society a certain 'gung-ho', 'trigger-happy' mentality which guarantees public support for misguided efforts like the 2003 Iraq conflict — an entirely separate discussion.

You say that Americans are often criticised for their lack of understanding of other cultures. I consider it wrong to apply this across the board, but from my experiences on these forums I can see exactly what people mean, I'm sorry to say. Does not the often greater worldliness of Europeans, and our greater understanding of other cultures, render it far from hypocritical for us to make comments on said cultures?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So why the hell are all you Europeans and Aussies, etc. telling us Americans how to live now? What gives you the right? You don't understand our culture, by your own admission. You don't live the way we do. You have no right to tell us how to live. Why are gun laws in the US any of your business?

---

Because you try to tell the rest of the world how to live. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea,..., etc. You don't understand their cultures or even our cultures and don't live like they or even us live. Why are their nuclear power plants or even nuclear weapons any of your business?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

...
So why the hell are all you Europeans and Aussies, etc. telling us Americans how to live now? ...

---

Where is anyone on this thread saying that? :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

...You have no right to tell us how to live. ...

---

Where is anyone on this thread saying that? :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

... Why are gun laws in the US any of your business?
If I feel I need a gun for protection, why do you feel that you know my situation better than I do?
If I feel I need a gun to ward off an oppressive, or even the threat of an oppressive government, why do think you know better?
If I feel like going to a range and shooting at some targets, who are you to tell me I can't do that?
If you live in the US and don't want to own a gun, no one is forcing you to. So how does someone leagally owning one, for any reason, infringe upon you, your rights, or your liberties?

---

Why so defensive?

Why can't we simply debate the pros-cons of private firearms ownership, weather in the U.S. or elsewhere?

Blimey chuck, stop crying into your pantyhose with your victim mentality. Bloody Liberal ;)

We're debating here. Talking, conversing, exploring.

How you can equate people on a Global forum discussing Global Gun ownership with American foreign policy which has lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths in recent years is beyond me.

Get over it.

(Supposed to be tongue in cheek and not too serious :D )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

My overriding reaction to this is: what a demonstration of victim mentality.

Also, you fail, Chuck, to grasp one essential difference between those who object to America imposing itself around the world and those here who are against the American gun laws. Those who say the US should, as you put it, 'keep our noses out of other people's business' are objecting to years of policy on the part of successive US administrations, some of whose foreign policy adventures have been deeply counterproductive to global security. All those of us here who object to US gun laws are doing is voicing our opinion against one law and the basis for it. We are entitled to do so, and will go on doing so. This is totally unconnected to any criticism of US foreign policy, except for the extent to which I believe there exists in sections of US society a certain 'gung-ho', 'trigger-happy' mentality which guarantees public support for misguided efforts like the 2003 Iraq conflict — an entirely separate discussion.

You say that Americans are often criticised for their lack of understanding of other cultures. I consider it wrong to apply this across the board, but from my experiences on these forums I can see exactly what people mean, I'm sorry to say. Does not the often greater worldliness of Europeans, and our greater understanding of other cultures, render it far from hypocritical for us to make comments on said cultures?

---

My overriding reaction to this is: what a demonstration of a superiority complex.

What a joke. Somehow you claim that it is ok for you as a European to critise anything the US does either in foreign or domestic policy because somehow you are more "worldly" than I am. You know next to nothing about me, my world travels, and knowledge of other cultures. Just as I know next to nothign about you. What makes you so special? What makes you more "worldly" than me, or anyone else for that matter?

So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either I have the right to cricise European affairs, or you do not. That is all I am saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Because you try to tell the rest of the world how to live. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea,..., etc. You don't understand their cultures or even our cultures and don't live like they or even us live. Why are their nuclear power plants or even nuclear weapons any of your business?

---

Because you are trying to tell the US how to live. You don't understand our culture, and you don't live like we do. Why are our guns any of your business.

Don't you see your hypocracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Where is anyone on this thread saying that? :s

Where is anyone on this thread saying that? :s

---

Hmmm. So you guys saying that we should outlaw guns is NOT telling us how to live??? I guess I do live in bizzaro world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Why so defensive?

Why can't we simply debate the pros-cons of private firearms ownership, weather in the U.S. or elsewhere?

---

Defensive? No. Sick and tired of the hypocracy? Yes.

If you want to debate the pros and cons. Then fine. But all too often other thread devolve into Europeans telling Americans to but out of other people's business. Yet they do the exact same thing when it comes to the US. I'm tired of the hypocracy.

Let's debate the pros and cons. I'm good with that. But please, in the future, when we are debating something in Europe, or elsewhere, please do not tell Americans that we can't have an opinion because we don't know/understand a culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

So I guess that means that the US should have minded it's own business in 1943. The war with Japan was justified because of their attack on US territory but the US should have stayed out of Europe as there was no direct threat? I guess the US should also have withdrawn from all of Europe at the end of WWII and left the European countries to deal with the USSR - another European country?

---

How about Bosnia? I suppose we should have allowed the genocide to continue there as well. Or many places in Africa now. There is an undercurrent of voices starting to cry out for the US to get involved there now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Why so defensive?

---

Because all of these people are far more frightened than we are. I don't consider this a positive trait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

My overriding reaction to this is: what a demonstration of a superiority complex.

What a joke. Somehow you claim that it is ok for you as a European to critise anything the US does either in foreign or domestic policy because somehow you are more "worldly" than I am. You know next to nothing about me, my world travels, and knowledge of other cultures. Just as I know next to nothign about you. What makes you so special? What makes you more "worldly" than me, or anyone else for that matter?

So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either I have the right to cricise European affairs, or you do not. That is all I am saying.

---

Chuck, nowhere in my post was I referring to you, because while I may have disagreements with you on this and other issues, I don't lump you in with those Americans one encountered who are depressingly insular, so I'd like an apology for your diatribe — one better suited to an inarticulate rant against you rather than what I deliberately intended to be a measured post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Because all of these people are far more frightened than we are. I don't consider this a positive trait.

---

I am not frightened of anything. With the possible exception of the government growing too power hungary and taking away more of our rights, which is happening all the time.

Once again, for the record, I don't own a gun. But I will fight to my last breath to make sure that people who do choose to own one, have that right. For whatever reason they choose, frightened of their neighbors, pleasure, government encroachment, just for the hell of it. The reason does not matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

3) We got into Iraq because of the lies and fabrications of some in our government who were working their own agenda. We're having a hell of a time getting out. (An excellent example of why people may need to stay armed to protect themselves from their own government or, more precisely, those in any culture who strive to take control of things to their own ends.)

---

There seem to be enough firearms in the hands of Afghans, unless you hadn't noticed. A fat lot of good they are doing, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

4) Afghanistan suffers from Iraq. We took our eye off the ball after 9/11 by allowing ourselves to be detoured into Iraq. Afghanistan would have been over and done but for that. And Osama and cronies would have been dead much sooner.

---

Really? I doubt it. Afghanistan is going to be in dire straits for decades to come. It is naive to suggest that it would have been anything other than a long haul had it not been for Iraq. And let's not forget the significant numbers of your countrymen who apparently believed that Iraq was 'something to do with '9/11'' even when there was no evidence whatsoever for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I am not frightened of anything. With the possible exception of the government growing too power hungary and taking away more of our rights, which is happening all the time.

Once again, for the record, I don't own a gun. But I will fight to my last breath to make sure that people who do choose to own one, have that right. For whatever reason they choose, frightened of their neighbors, pleasure, government encroachment, just for the hell of it. The reason does not matter.

---

And neither, apparently, does the level of intelligence or competence of the people holding them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

So I guess that means that the US should have minded it's own business in 1943. The war with Japan was justified because of their attack on US territory but the US should have stayed out of Europe as there was no direct threat? I guess the US should also have withdrawn from all of Europe at the end of WWII and left the European countries to deal with the USSR - another European country?

---

For a start, the US entered the European theatre in 1942, not 1943. If you are going to seek to lecture others, get your facts right. Secondly, where on earth did I mention the Second World War? Re-read what I wrote again and you'll see no reference to it (equally, you won't find me genuflecting towards America's late intervention, as valuable as it unquestionably was, and expressing undying gratitude because I consider it unnecessary so to do). For what it's worth, I consider the American presence in Europe and the assistance it rendered post-war to, generally, have been an example of foreign policy carried out for the right reasons, unlike certain recent adventures. Certainly, it was a significant contributor to peace during the Cold War. Unfortunately, though, you have fallen into the trap encountered by quite a lot of right-leaning Americans, namely to believe that criticism of one aspect of American policy must equate to a detestation of every aspect. This is simply not true, although it is highly predictable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Chuck, nowhere in my post was I referring to you, because while I may have disagreements with you on this and other issues, I don't lump you in with those Americans one encountered who are depressingly insular, so I'd like an apology for your diatribe — one better suited to an inarticulate rant against you rather than what I deliberately intended to be a measured post.

---

What? You didn't refer to me? Are you serious?

Listen I do normally respect you and your opinions. You are fairly rational, even though I disagree with you most of the time on politically ideology.

But this is too far. For you to claim that you did not refer to me when you directly quoted me, and then to demand an apology. No. That I will not do.

I said what I said, and I ment it. It does not matter if you were refering to me or someone else. This is an internet forum. You know next to nothing about anyone here. So to claim that you have some superior right to an opinion because you are more "worldly" than somone else, is ridiculous on it's face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What? You didn't refer to me? Are you serious?

Listen I do normally respect you and your opinions. You are fairly rational, even though I disagree with you most of the time on politically ideology.

But this is too far. For you to claim that you did not refer to me when you directly quoted me, and then to demand an apology. No. That I will not do.

I said what I said, and I ment it. It does not matter if you were refering to me or someone else. This is an internet forum. You know next to nothing about anyone here. So to claim that you have some superior right to an opinion because you are more "worldly" than somone else, is ridiculous on it's face.

---

Chuck, what will it take to get through to you — I wasn't referring to you in this instance, but other people! For goodness' sake. Do you think I'm lying when I say that? I'm not, I'll have you know. How on earth you can possibly conclude that my comments were aimed at you I honestly have no idea, because they were not.

And as for your assertion that 'It does not matter if you were refering to me or someone else' — well, clearly it does, hence your irritation, but what do you mean by that anyway? Are you seeking to deny that there is an insular streak to be found in some of your countrymen, of a type that one rarely encounters in, for example, Europe? I didn't consider it that controversial an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

...So maybe we should just agree to disagree and let this thread wither away.

---

Agreed. Based on previous similar efforts, sadly the outcome of this thread is highly predictable :mark: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Chuck, what will it take to get through to you — I wasn't referring to you in this instance, but other people! For goodness' sake. Do you think I'm lying when I say that? I'm not, I'll have you know. How on earth you can possibly conclude that my comments were aimed at you I honestly have no idea, because they were not.

And as for your assertion that 'It does not matter if you were refering to me or someone else' — well, clearly it does, hence your irritation, but what do you mean by that anyway? Are you seeking to deny that there is an insular streak to be found in some of your countrymen, of a type that one rarely encounters in, for example, Europe? I didn't consider it that controversial an opinion.

---

My God I do live in Bizzaro world. In my universe, when you directly quote someone you are clearly refering to them. If you wanted to speak about my arguments but not address me, then perhaps you should have said something like "Other Americans ...", "other Conservatives ..." etc. But when you directly quote me, without qualification, then what am I supposed to infer from that other than you are referencing me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

We have, In multiple threads here. Over and over. But some keep whipping a dead horse and reopening the same tired discussion again.

---

At the risk of more threats of ban for daring to speak to an imoderate 'moderator'.....it seems from my perspective that threads are started expressing horror and dismay at pointless, seemingly insane gun related murders which are then derailed by a tiny coterie of Americans ranting about "Nobody's gonna take my guns! Cause I'm gonna shoot it out with a) baddies and b) the evil Gubbymint".

Normal people in normal civilised countries ARE dismayed and horrified when innocent people are slaghtered by crazies.
Evidently you and Chuck like it.

Quote:

---

Canada (and I love the country and visit often) is more aligned with the European culture. Though it does sort of have a foot in both camps.

---

Considering that maybe 85% of the population of Canada lives withing 100km of the US border, and that despite a absurd and wasteful border charade is carried out, the line on the map does not stop the relentless maddness poured forth from US AM Radio. Also there are cynical greedy authoritarians in Canada as plagues everywhere, and they know they can make a fortune winding up the weaker minded and more fearful in Canada so there is a mimicking of the diarrhea from the US AM radio....so yes, there's a foot in both but I would suggest that one isn't in a camp, but rather something smellier, and stickier.

Quote:

---

The US culture, on the other hand, has always been based on the individual. Probably because of much of our history as a "frontier" and rebel country. We esteem individual rights over collective society. We don't like other people telling us what to do. (Even if they're sometimes right. :p )

---

What America "was always" is one thing. One must wonder why the Legislatures of Virginia and Massechusetts, the 2 major hotbeds of our Revolution were thinking when they named their former Colonies "The Commonwealth of Virginia" and the "Commonwealth of Massivetwoshïts"?
Further one has to wonder what the hell they were talking about in the Preamble of our Constitution when they were all blabberingabout "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," instead of "THE INDIVIDUAL!!!! which so many claim the country "has always been"?

Quote:

---

So maybe we should just agree to disagree and let this thread wither away.

---

Or you could just threaten bannation to everybody who points out anything that disagrees with you and the other Americans hijacking threads or those ridiculing the vision of you guys blazing away at a M-1 Abrams with you pistols and rifles "defending yourself against gubbymint tyranny".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

For a start, the US entered the European theatre in 1942, not 1943.

---

We were already involved by 1940 with the destroyer/base exchange and Lend-Lease in 1941. And that's not counting convoy work.

And it was Germany and Italy that declared war on the US, though oddly because of the way the Japan treaty was written it wasn't required since Japan struck first.

I've heard someone say Japanese internment within the US wouldn't have happened they all were armed. True story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

You didn't have to mention WWII, you were pulling up instances where you believe the US to be in error and I was citing instances where our foreign adventures were warmly welcomed.

I don't have time to do a complete forum search of all your posts, so perhaps you could remind me of the last time you applauded anything done by the US? I certainly can't remember it. So, could it be that the body of your posts would lead one to believe that you perhaps are not inclined to think much of this country?

---

And it's such a shame you began with Korea where the US was only welcomed by the most extreme elements in Korea, specifically the Officer Corp who had been on the pay of Japan---a brutal totalitarian regime..And who were installed by the US Army, and who replicated the paranoid, hyper Nationalistic, brutal Government like they knew best.
And it took a bloody war and a couple of decades of violent and murderous repression in the South by the South Korean "dynasty" before there was anything like a civilised, democratic society in the South..

So Fail on that example.

Anyplace else where US military forces were welcomed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

Normal people in normal civilised countries ARE dismayed and horrified when innocent people are slaghtered by crazies.
Evidently you and Chuck like it.

---

When have I ever said that I like this sort of thing happening? I hate it, and wish that it would never happen. But in a free society, unfortunatly crap happens. I know that's an old cliche, but it is true. The only way to ensure that nothing bad will ever happen is to take all freedom away. Is that a good answer to you, take all freedom away, so that no one can ever hurt themselves or others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

Also there are cynical greedy authoritarians in Canada as plagues everywhere,

---

Which position is more "authoritarian", allowing people to own guns as they have for well over 200 years, or passing new laws that will outlaw tomorrow what is legal today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

What America "was always" is one thing. One must wonder why the Legislatures of Virginia and Massechusetts, the 2 major hotbeds of our Revolution were thinking when they named their former Colonies "The Commonwealth of Virginia" and the "Commonwealth of Massivetwoshïts"?
Further one has to wonder what the hell they were talking about in the Preamble of our Constitution when they were all blabberingabout "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," instead of "THE INDIVIDUAL!!!! which so many claim the country "has always been"?

---

It is clear from this statement that the only thing you know of the US Constitution is the preamble. You have clearly never read the rest of the document, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the writings of the Founders, and the like. If you had read up on some of those things you would see that the over-riding concern of EVERYONE involved was how to maximize personal liberty while maintaining some form of National unity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

Or you could just threaten bannation to everybody who points out anything that disagrees with you and the other Americans hijacking threads or those ridiculing the vision of you guys blazing away at a M-1 Abrams with you pistols and rifles "defending yourself against gubbymint tyranny".

---

So your belief is that there is no way for the US government to become tyranical? That isn't what I heard from many on the left/progressive/liberal side of things when the debate turns to the Patriot Act. Interesting how that works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

My God I do live in Bizzaro world. In my universe, when you directly quote someone you are clearly refering to them. If you wanted to speak about my arguments but not address me, then perhaps you should have said something like "Other Americans ...", "other Conservatives ..." etc. But when you directly quote me, without qualification, then what am I supposed to infer from that other than you are referencing me?

---

I had hoped you'd realised enough about me to know that I don't automatically lump you in with certain other individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I don't have time to do a complete forum search of all your posts, so perhaps you could remind me of the last time you applauded anything done by the US? I certainly can't remember it. So, could it be that the body of your posts would lead one to believe that you perhaps are not inclined to think much of this country?

---

I would be interested to find any instances where I had applauded any country. It's generally not the sort of thing I, or many other people, do. You really were infected with the Bush virus, weren't you — 'You're either with us or against us'. Even a lack of explicit praise is now cited as outright opposition. An interesting leap of judgement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

The war with Japan was justified because of their attack on US territory

---

Actually it was Hawaiian territory before the US attacked it and made it US territory. And there were many ethnic Japanese in Hawaii, so it was natural that Japan was as interested in ruling Hawaii as the US was. Japan was never a real threat to the mainland USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I had hoped you'd realised enough about me to know that I don't automatically lump you in with certain other individuals.

---

I would have thought so. However, the words on the screen tell a different story. If you are now clarifying what you said, I can accept that. I suppose my advise would be that in the future when you quote me you should not say something that you are not applying to me without expressly stating as such. I hope you can see where confusion can lay when one is quoted, but somehow the poster is not directing a response to that quote?

Starter, fair enough on many of those points a few posts above. However...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I was only asking why almost all (if not actually all) of your posts on any subject about the US are negative. It's a reasonable question. The thing that irritates me (and I suspect some others) is the seemingly constant pounding of all things American. That's not deserved criticism, that's just piling on.

---

I object enormously to any accusations of anti-Americanism. There is much to admire about America. When topics come up, I respond to them. The fact that, on issues like gun control and foreign policy, I find myself more in disagreement with you and certain others than I happen to agree. That, though, is hardly my fault, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Because you are trying to tell the US how to live. You don't understand our culture, and you don't live like we do. Why are our guns any of your business.

Don't you see your hypocracy?

---

What's that hypocracy?! Oh wait, you were talking about your culture not ours. Now I understand what that word should mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Because all of these people are far more frightened than we are. I don't consider this a positive trait.

---

Especially when the aforementioned people poses guns. Some politicians did a 'great' job over there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I suspect that you and I may disagree much less than you think on foreign policy.

---

Very possibly, and I apologise for misrepresenting that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

What's that hypocracy?! Oh wait, you were talking about your culture not ours. Now I understand what that word should mean.

---

Evidently he means a system of government the Hypocrites, for the Hypocrites, by the hypocrites..

There is a small possiblity that he means:hypocrisy Look up hypocrisy at Dictionary.com
c.1200, ipocrisie, from O.Fr. ypocrisie, from L.L. hypocrisis, from Gk. hypokrisis "acting on the stage, pretense," from hypokrinesthai "play a part, pretend," also "answer," from hypo- "under" (see sub-) + middle voice of krinein "to sift, decide" (see crisis). The sense evolution in Attic Greek is from "separate gradually" to "answer" to "answer a fellow actor on stage" to "play a part." The h- was restored in English 16c.

But Shirley I could not comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

What's that hypocracy?!

---

Only medical practitioners have a right to vote, after taking their oath ? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

The Nuance is that more people have been murdered under the specter of restrictive gun control laws in Europe than all those killed by guns owned by private citizens in the USA. I guess I was too subtle.....

And once again I will point out that I reject any notion that people like you can restrict my right to defend myself, my family, my friends and my property as I see fit. My mere possession of a firearm doesn't violate anyone else right so you have nobody else has the right to restrict it.

So this discussion is over which releases you to tell other people how they can live their lives.

---

This is the very first time I've ever heard a gun supporter state that guns kill. Usually it is the idiotic,guns don't kill people, people kill people.