Guns, Guns Guns

Good luck with your system, but it's not for us. We have a word for armed overthrow of a legally elected government, treason

Daryl wrote:Poker I think you have pointed out the relevant cultural difference between the US and other developed countries. I (and most of our citizens) want the democratically elected government to have the power. We don't want mob rule or bands of rednecks believing that they know better than the majority, thus imposing their ideologies on us.

Good luck with your system, but it's not for us. We have a word for armed overthrow of a legally elected government, treason.

pokermind wrote:Hmm, assuming we wish to be disarmed by what true Communists call useful idiots. Mao Tse Tung once said "Power comes from the barrel of the gun," now do you want that power in the hands of a government or the people. In the USA we decided to put it into the hands of the people in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Poker

smr wrote:Daryl...look at history....Hitler disarmed the public and established the 3rd Reich...Russia is prime example of government doing what it wants to do irregardless of the people's desire. China is example of what happens when the government decides that the people are the problem not the government.

pokermind wrote:Then again your country did not march soldiers through recent atomic tests and refuse to treat resultant cancers down the road either, test the effects of LSD on subway passengers in New York, tolerate massive voter fraud including allowing non citizens to vote OURS HAS!

Hmm as one revolutionary said during our American Revolution, "Why should I trade one tyrant two thousand miles away for two thousand tyrants living a mile away, a legislature can take one's liberty away as easily as a king."

Poker

Spacekiwi wrote:Its probably not unsolvable, except due to politics. It would just take 1 to 3 decades of work. Start with simplyfing the rules the country over, to a full level, with state or county rules not allowed to be looser. Stuff like the permanent banning of gun ownership if convicted of a gun crime, such as a domestic with weapon, or threatening with a gun. Harsher sentences for those who offend with a gun. better controls on who gets a license, and relicense requirements.Prevent kids under 7/8 from firing guns. cases where accidents are likely to happen. don't just concentrate on reducing crime, concentrate on reducing injuries as well.

In addition to this, start campaigns to reduce the desire for gun ownership, and to improve handling safety. Change the mindset from a gun being a piece of clothing or your phone, to be taken everywhere, to a tool that demands respect.

Now sit on this for 5 to 10 years. Everyone should now know the rules, and the enforcement should have become steady. Remove concealed carry, large magazines, and divide gun licenses so you need more background checks, and a higher standard to follow, for owning more than a set amount of guns (say 40 for personal use, excluding licensed collectors.), and sit back for another 2 decades.

2 generations of kids will grow up with less access to firearms, and improved respect. The guns that have been banned can be grandfathered in, with a clause preventing sale except to licensed gun collectors, and 3 decades, will slowly reduce the amount of guns available, as guns die from lack of care, and can only be replaced with smaller guns, or can no longer be used due to lack of ammo.

240 odd years of culture will take a while to change, but it could be done, if slowly, if you get some politicians with a backbone to bring america in line with the rest of the world.

Now enforce these l

Daryl wrote:I do prefer our system where we don't need guns to defend ourselves or be safe. That said I agree that the USA is most probably now stuck with an insolvable gun problem.

As a gun owner I do find alarming the mind set that having a gun provides a bullet proof safety shield. Just not so, and I believe that having a gun just gives the other side an excuse to shoot in their self defence.

Daryl wrote:Poker I think you have pointed out the relevant cultural difference between the US and other developed countries. I (and most of our citizens) want the democratically elected government to have the power. We don't want mob rule or bands of rednecks believing that they know better than the majority, thus imposing their ideologies on us.

Good luck with your system, but it's not for us. We have a word for armed overthrow of a legally elected government, treason.

pokermind wrote:Hmm, assuming we wish to be disarmed by what true Communists call useful idiots. Mao Tse Tung once said "Power comes from the barrel of the gun," now do you want that power in the hands of a government or the people. In the USA we decided to put it into the hands of the people in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Poker

Zakharra wrote: Good luck with that. There would be numerous states, mine among them, that would flat out resist such actions and a heck of a lot of people would actually shoot -any- federal or state agents trying to enforce any onerous restrictions on getting and owning firearms. We firmly believe in our right to have a firearm and woe onto any federal agency that tries to change that.

And a gun isn't a bullet proof shield. Where did you get that idea? It's a means of getting food, sport and the ability to defend ones home and family by shooting any armed and/or dangerous intruders.

Our founders also wanted the people to have the power, not the federal government. Certainly not at the levels many Democrats want the federal government to have. A nanny state? They'd be appalled. The people of a nation should not have to depend solely on the government to defend them, but should be able to also defend themselves, and an armed citizenry mans the government can't get too powerful and has (or should) listen to its citizens and not to trust-less career politicians that sell out to the highest campaign donors.And a government that acts contrary to the will of the people is an illegal one and deserves to be thrown out of office.

I and many Americans flat out do not want a European style democracy with many restrictions and more and more power devolved onto the federal government. I think the federal government should be more limited in what it can do and should be allowed to do in accordance to the limitations put in the Constitution.

pokermind wrote:Then again your country did not march soldiers through recent atomic tests and refuse to treat resultant cancers down the road either, test the effects of LSD on subway passengers in New York, tolerate massive voter fraud including allowing non citizens to vote OURS HAS!

Hmm as one revolutionary said during our American Revolution, "Why should I trade one tyrant two thousand miles away for two thousand tyrants living a mile away, a legislature can take one's liberty away as easily as a king."

Poker

Spacekiwi wrote:Which is why I said over 3 decades or so, and why I said you start off with basic laws regarding preventing those who have committed crimes first, and preventing kids using them, and enforcing the laws you have. 5 or 10 years, then you start with the new rules. Dont just change the law, change perspective.

Zakharra wrote: Good luck with that. There would be numerous states, mine among them, that would flat out resist such actions and a heck of a lot of people would actually shoot -any- federal or state agents trying to enforce any onerous restrictions on getting and owning firearms. We firmly believe in our right to have a firearm and woe onto any federal agency that tries to change that.

And a gun isn't a bullet proof shield. Where did you get that idea? It's a means of getting food, sport and the ability to defend ones home and family by shooting any armed and/or dangerous intruders.

Daryl wrote:This is a highly emotive issue that I'm sure will never be resolved here, for as I stated earlier the cultures are fundamentally different on this matter. Although I do wonder if the US culture is all like that. Do the tech folks in silicon valley feel the same way as the good old boys in the bible belt?

Poker, our government (conservative at the time along with the UK) in the 1950s did use our soldiers as guinea pigs in numerous nuclear blasts. Standing in the open close enough to have the blast knock them over, then placed at various intervals to see how much radiation they received from fall out. Google Maralinga.

Later on our good friends the US did with our government do similar medical experiments on our citizens.

I stand by my point that having a gun often makes you more vulnerable, for the two reasons that it gives you false over confidence, and also gives the opposition a self defence excuse to shoot you. Don't forget, if the enemy is in range so are you.

To those of us outside the US the thought of keeping domestic guns in order to have an option of overthrowing an elected government if we don't agree with it is bizarre. Thus we will never comprehend each other's positions.

As to my having guns so I should understand, I grew up using guns as tools, am highly trained and skilled in their use, and have far too much to lose by misusing them. The thought of using them against my government or fellow citizens in an electoral dispute is horrifying. Do I want Chuck, on welfare in the trailer park, and vaguely resentful about the guvnmnt when marginally sober to have access to firearms? Hell no.

pokermind wrote:Then again your country did not march soldiers through recent atomic tests and refuse to treat resultant cancers down the road either, test the effects of LSD on subway passengers in New York, tolerate massive voter fraud including allowing non citizens to vote OURS HAS!

Hmm as one revolutionary said during our American Revolution, "Why should I trade one tyrant two thousand miles away for two thousand tyrants living a mile away, a legislature can take one's liberty away as easily as a king."

Poker

smr wrote:Bravo pokermind....I wish I could express my thoughts and views on the same subject with eloquence that you expressed.

pokermind wrote:Then again your country did not march soldiers through recent atomic tests and refuse to treat resultant cancers down the road either, test the effects of LSD on subway passengers in New York, tolerate massive voter fraud including allowing non citizens to vote OURS HAS!

Hmm as one revolutionary said during our American Revolution, "Why should I trade one tyrant two thousand miles away for two thousand tyrants living a mile away, a legislature can take one's liberty away as easily as a king."

Poker