Guns, Guns Guns

Thanks Invictus for pointing out the true facts. I have tried to discuss this in an adult reasonable style to avoid flaming, but have to respond to this -
"You succeed in making my primary point that people who demand nationalized healthcare or gun control (especially in other people's country) are motivated more by a philosophical belief than any actual evidence to substantiate that belief. In your case, the gun control issue is primarily a pretext to validate your contempt and hostility to the US.

There is a very simple solution to your problem. Just don't leave your gun free paradise to come to the US, even to visit."
Bullsh*t. I have never demanded nationalised health care or gun control (reaches up to pat my gun cupboard on the wall next to me) in my own country or yours. I have sought information regarding the rationale behind the way the US does things, as I have been genuinely puzzled. From well stated feedback from nearly everyone here I've come to understand more, and believe that there are more similarities between systems than seems at first glance.
We don't have a "gun free paradise". Few people are more critical of my own country than I am, as I can see that while it is pretty good it could be much better but for the politicians. It also isn't gun free (reaches up and pats his military rifle for luck), but is much more sensibly sorted regarding guns than some. I woke up this morning to the TV news headline, of Another US school shooting near Columbine. Luckily no innocents appear to have died. Can't remember when we last had a school shooting? Your health system is your business, but appears to be grossly inefficient, however your system your say.
I personally don't have contempt or hostility for the US. My wife does somewhat, but then again on some days she feels that way about me, so we're evens.
Regarding the sensitivity about elitist snobs, sorry if it comes out that way, but the media and even Hollywood does tend to reinforce the stereotype of good old boys in Alabama driving Chevvy pickups and being somewhat dumb. We Australians like to "take the Mickey" or tease, just ask the Kiwis about our sheep jokes. So we tend to do the same to others as a bit of good natured fun.
Like Invictus I am genuinely annoyed by the dismissive attitude of "former allies". No country has supported the US more both politically and militarily, often to our own great disadvantage. So you can shove that patronising crap where the sun doesn't shine.

namelessfly wrote:I confess that the idea of one or more of the US' former allies in Europe, Australia, NZ or Canada being invaded, conquered, or even subjected to genocide while the US does nothing has a certain appeal. Would the arrogant, elitist snobs still critique the US for it's bloated military, past interventionism, and it's refusal to implement Nationalized healthcare or "sensible" gun laws while their women and children are being bayoneted in the streets and they are being herded into gas chambers? Such an invasion seems unlikely. However; natural disasters occur regularly. It would be amusing to observe the reaction if the Carrier Battle Groups and Amphibious Assault ships that are so resented just stood by and watched while the injured and endangered survivors that we could have saved, died.

Has it occurred to you that attitudes like this (not to mention proposing mass murder as a valid response, which you ironically did in the other thread) are part of the reason people distrust Americans (American conservatives in particular)?

To Daryl and Invictus. Serious question, here. Does Australia still have troops in Korea? I know they still have troops in Afgahnistan, with their return to home timed to coincide with the US withdrawal. In fact, if I remember correctly, they will be staying just as long. It is unfortunate that the US media tends to down play those facts.

Good and serious question. The website http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/Current-operations
covers the significant deployments and Korea is not one of them now although Afghanistan and Iraq are, however we do have a number of troops embedded with our allies (current - not former) throughout the world. I would imagine that some of our troops are in Korea, but not many at this time.
I probably got a bit too emotional earlier, however I know that many Australian troops have died while involved in US initiated operations (including current ones), so deeply resent the slur that we bludge off the US military machine. Trying impartially to think of another country that has automatically joined more times with the US in any military ventures in the past 50 years comes up with none. On a personal note I have lost relatives and friends deployed on joint ventures with the US, and have spent many years facilitating cooperation between the forces as part of my job.

KNick wrote:To Daryl and Invictus. Serious question, here. Does Australia still have troops in Korea? I know they still have troops in Afgahnistan, with their return to home timed to coincide with the US withdrawal. In fact, if I remember correctly, they will be staying just as long. It is unfortunate that the US media tends to down play those facts.

I do appreciate the contributions of the former and current US allies. No ands, ifs, or buts. There is a debt owed for the type commitment showed nations like Australia. Whatever level of increased isolation the US adopts in the near future, ignoring that debt is unacceptable.

That still leaves nations the US owes no similar debt to. Those nations will have to look to themselves for defense. The alternative is the US being the world's policeman/bodyguard. That is not working out well for anyone.

Daryl wrote:Good and serious question. The website http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/Current-operations
covers the significant deployments and Korea is not one of them now although Afghanistan and Iraq are, however we do have a number of troops embedded with our allies (current - not former) throughout the world. I would imagine that some of our troops are in Korea, but not many at this time.
I probably got a bit too emotional earlier, however I know that many Australian troops have died while involved in US initiated operations (including current ones), so deeply resent the slur that we bludge off the US military machine. Trying impartially to think of another country that has automatically joined more times with the US in any military ventures in the past 50 years comes up with none. On a personal note I have lost relatives and friends deployed on joint ventures with the US, and have spent many years facilitating cooperation between the forces as part of my job.

KNick wrote:To Daryl and Invictus. Serious question, here. Does Australia still have troops in Korea? I know they still have troops in Afgahnistan, with their return to home timed to coincide with the US withdrawal. In fact, if I remember correctly, they will be staying just as long. It is unfortunate that the US media tends to down play those facts.

I am not proposing that the US commit mass murder.

I am simply suggesting that the US should simply refuse to intervene in the next genocide.

Eyal wrote:

namelessfly wrote:I confess that the idea of one or more of the US' former allies in Europe, Australia, NZ or Canada being invaded, conquered, or even subjected to genocide while the US does nothing has a certain appeal. Would the arrogant, elitist snobs still critique the US for it's bloated military, past interventionism, and it's refusal to implement Nationalized healthcare or "sensible" gun laws while their women and children are being bayoneted in the streets and they are being herded into gas chambers? Such an invasion seems unlikely. However; natural disasters occur regularly. It would be amusing to observe the reaction if the Carrier Battle Groups and Amphibious Assault ships that are so resented just stood by and watched while the injured and endangered survivors that we could have saved, died.

Has it occurred to you that attitudes like this (not to mention proposing mass murder as a valid response, which you ironically did in the other thread) are part of the reason people distrust Americans (American conservatives in particular)?

Excellent points.

The evolution of the precedent of Presidents waging war without a formal declaration of war from Congress has been a disaster. While some presidents such as Bush 1 and Bush 2 have sought Congressional resolutions, others have not. This had allowed the US to become far too involved.

Invictus wrote:

PeterZ wrote:In the US, we rejected monarch's authority from our inception. We asserted our individual sovereignty and composed a social contract called our Constitution to organize how our society and government might be organized. United States Citizens hold the ultimate authority in our country, not the agents we elect to hold office.

It is our right and responsibility to toss out elected officials that overstep their Constitutional limits. Those office holders are our agents acting with power we lend them. They are NOT our rulers, no matter how they were elected. Representatives, presidents, senators and judges aren't the source of authority, not the office or the individuals that hold the office. We the people do.

It doesn't matter how many people vote for the group of representatives in power. They are limited in what they can do. When those representatives violate the citizens' constitutionally granted liberties, they break our social contract. That violation is the act of overthrowing legitimate authority. Tossing the bums out through elections or other more violent means is simply reasserting the legitimate authority.

If enough people don't like the current social contract, then change it. Until our Constitution is changed, our guns remain the ultimate tool to resist the usurpation of the US citizens' authority granted by our Constitution.

Wow. Where to begin...
Ok, the question that comes to mind is, If you truly believe that the persons in government should be restricted to the power laid out in the US constitution, why the hell haven't there ALREADY been rebellions? I can think of three cases right of the top of my head where members of congress and/or the Executive branch have twisted the US constitution into a pretzel, if not flat out ignored it!

1. The last time the US congress passed an actual declaration of war was in 1941, when it declared war on the Axis powers. Per Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To ...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

No where in there does it say the President can begin a war without the explicit consent of Congress. How's that working out?

2.
"Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Do I need to actually say anything here?

3."Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Kinda the whole point of this thread...

After reading the US constitution, it seems apparent to me that the only power over government it actually gives its citizens is the power to vote. And even that has fallen by the wayside. Ever hear of Gerrymandering? How is it a free and fair election when your election district is drawn up based on how you and your neighbours vote?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

I was thinking (among other examples) of your argument in the "how America is viewed" thread that

If I had been POTUS I would have responded to 9-11 by launching an overwhelming strike against Pakistan's nuclear forces and military then aided India in destroying the County. While I would have attempted to arrest or kill Bin Laden, I would have been per suing a military strategy of retribution rather than nation building in Afghanistan. I would have destroyed the irrigation and transportation infrastructure that allows the country to feed itself and export opium. I would have done this with the intention of killing a large percentage of the population to ensure that Afghanistan never sponsored an attack on the US ever again.

namelessfly wrote:I am not proposing that the US commit mass murder.

I am simply suggesting that the US should simply refuse to intervene in the next genocide.

I was thinking (among other examples) of your argument in the "how America is viewed" thread that

If I had been POTUS I would have responded to 9-11 by launching an overwhelming strike against Pakistan's nuclear forces and military then aided India in destroying the County. While I would have attempted to arrest or kill Bin Laden, I would have been per suing a military strategy of retribution rather than nation building in Afghanistan. I would have destroyed the irrigation and transportation infrastructure that allows the country to feed itself and export opium. I would have done this with the intention of killing a large percentage of the population to ensure that Afghanistan never sponsored an attack on the US ever again.

Sounds like someone is channeling William T Sherman.

If I had been POTUS I would have responded to 9-11 by launching an overwhelming strike against Pakistan's nuclear forces and military then aided India in destroying the County. While I would have attempted to arrest or kill Bin Laden, I would have been per suing a military strategy of retribution rather than nation building in Afghanistan. I would have destroyed the irrigation and transportation infrastructure that allows the country to feed itself and export opium. I would have done this with the intention of killing a large percentage of the population to ensure that Afghanistan never sponsored an attack on the US ever again.

Since that didn't work for the Mongols, what makes you think it would do anything other than guaranty that the survivors and neighbors came at us even harder?