Guns, Guns Guns

Donnachaidh wrote:And Godwin's Law still holds true.

MAD-4A wrote:(like Hitler did to Germany in the 30's)

I don't believe this was the first time on this thread. Still, your point stands.

MAD-4A wrote:Thank you!

By Americans having the right to have guns, we take some of that power (the power of the gun - which is the basis of ANY political power) away from the politicians and put it (literally) in the hands of the people! By taking away guns (like Hitler did to Germany in the 30's) you remove that power from the hands of the people and put it in the hands of the politicians. How can anybody be so blind (or two faced) to complain about corrupt government and then support that same corrupt government having control of the guns?

I will quibble that the only source of political power lies in a gun. Ghandi managed without large scale use of guns. Of course, he was willing to die so that others might not have to kill to assert political power. That willingness does nothing to protect one's personal life and liberty. Yet, that is still a source of political power and does not require guns.

That said, I am more than willing to have guns and protect my life so that I do not have to sacrifice it to assert political power.

Each country to its own. Sorry if some got the impression I said that the US gun culture to enforce democracy theory is crazy. I meant to say that it appears crazy to those outside.
I'd challenge the theory that this is an effective control to stop oligarchs taking over, as from statistics it appears that the US is the furtherest of all developed nations down that path already. Certainly the concentration of wealth and influence amongst a very small percentage of the population seems highest there.

Wikapedia says "Some contemporary authors have characterized current conditions in the United States as being oligarchic in nature.[10][11] Simon Johnson wrote that "the reemergence of an American financial oligarchy is quite recent," a structure which he delineated as being the "most advanced" in the world.[12] Jeffrey A. Winters argues that "oligarchy and democracy operate within a single system, and American politics is a daily display of their interplay."[13] Bernie"

I'd also challenge the assertion that other developed countries aren't as free as the US or as conscious of the need to stay free. Our governments too exist subject to the will of the people. Most of our PMs have come from humble beginnings, and we have a habit of changing the colour of our governments regularly. When some of our potential oligarchs try to unduly influence affairs; we through media (mainstream and social), plus "barbecue chats" ridicule them and point out their self interest. We don't see a need to keep a personal arsenal to violently bring them to heel. Incidentally, unlike probably any others here I have previously actually earned a living hunting and trapping, and still have a number of legal firearms so I don't hate guns.

PeterZ wrote:…Ghandi managed without large scale use of guns...

I didn’t say it required the large scale “use” of guns. But still comes from the gun. Even if that power is from the indirect threat of their use. When Gandhi was leader of India did he ban the police or military from all use of firearms? Also I believe his independent political leadership was quite short & threw the use of a gun.

Daryl wrote:I meant to say that it appears crazy to those outside.

So was the idea of not having a king.

Daryl wrote:I'd challenge the theory that this is an effective control to stop oligarchs taking over,

It’s worked so far – that’s why the liberal socialists are so adamant about taking them – they can’t turn us into a socialist dictatorship while we have them. (or as Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto put it: You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. – that includes political insurrectionists.)

Daryl wrote:as from statistics it appears that the US is the furtherest of all developed nations down that path already. Certainly the concentration of wealth and influence amongst a very small percentage of the population seems highest there.

Wrong – the wealth is concentrated with the people. Even if it isn’t a majority (that’s never going to happen with any society). But with a larger minority than most &, more important, it’s with citizens - NOT some elite group of political leaders, who take everyone else’s wealth & stuffs it in their own pockets (like socialist countries). Its people who worked for it, or inherited it from someone who did. The political leaders who are rich come mostly from that inherited group (the Kennedy money came from bootlegging booze!). The majority of the rich in America aren’t even in politics (or got in to it threw their business interests). If anyone can come up with a way to get lots of money (like the .com’ers) then they’re in that “elite” group & don’t have to be in the political party to do it. Just find a way to get money, That’s freedom!

Daryl wrote:Wikapedia says…

"blahvblahblah" wiki-whatever somebody put there – sorry, not a scholarly (or reliable) source.

Daryl wrote:I'd also challenge the assertion that other developed countries aren't as free as the US or as conscious of the need to stay free. Our governments too exist subject to the will of the people.

No government rules in a vacuum. All governments are subject to the “will of the people”. Even if that ”will” is forced at gun point (OK you can rule me if you don’t have me shot!) – Hitler rule at the “will of the people” and the Allies ousted Germanys duly elected leader. (Not that the little nutball didn’t deserve it!)

Daryl wrote:Most of our PMs have come from humble beginnings, and we have a habit of changing the colour of our governments regularly. When some of our potential oligarchs try to unduly influence affairs; we through media (mainstream and social), plus "barbecue chats" ridicule them and point out their self interest. We don't see a need to keep a personal arsenal to violently bring them to heel.

(PMs – British I presume?) Yes, since, so far, none of your leaders have felt themselves in a position to say: “well now I’m going to be in charge from now on”, unless you count the 2 Charles’s or Oliver Cromwell & perhaps a few others. The position in the British government of supreme dictator is the King (or Queen as the case at the time) that particular position has been rendered more of a figurehead position for the bureaucracy. For anyone else to take the position of dictator they would have to over-though the whole system & replace the hereditary monarchy with them selves – that would take a major civil war or a much larger amount of political clout than any one person is ever likely to come by. Or another Charles I (no jib at Prince Charles intended) comes along within the royal family and sets about restoring the power of the monarchy & stripping the power from Parliament. We don’t have that place-holder here. We have to do it ourselves.

The amount of ignorance displayed in this post is staggering. To all of the non-US people, I'm sorry.

MAD-4A wrote:

PeterZ wrote:…Ghandi managed without large scale use of guns...

I didn’t say it required the large scale “use” of guns. But still comes from the gun. Even if that power is from the indirect threat of their use. When Gandhi was leader of India did he ban the police or military from all use of firearms? Also I believe his independent political leadership was quite short & threw the use of a gun.

Daryl wrote:I meant to say that it appears crazy to those outside.

So was the idea of not having a king.

Daryl wrote:I'd challenge the theory that this is an effective control to stop oligarchs taking over,

It’s worked so far – that’s why the liberal socialists are so adamant about taking them – they can’t turn us into a socialist dictatorship while we have them. (or as Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto put it: You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. – that includes political insurrectionists.)

Daryl wrote:as from statistics it appears that the US is the furtherest of all developed nations down that path already. Certainly the concentration of wealth and influence amongst a very small percentage of the population seems highest there.

Wrong – the wealth is concentrated with the people. Even if it isn’t a majority (that’s never going to happen with any society). But with a larger minority than most &, more important, it’s with citizens - NOT some elite group of political leaders, who take everyone else’s wealth & stuffs it in their own pockets (like socialist countries). Its people who worked for it, or inherited it from someone who did. The political leaders who are rich come mostly from that inherited group (the Kennedy money came from bootlegging booze!). The majority of the rich in America aren’t even in politics (or got in to it threw their business interests). If anyone can come up with a way to get lots of money (like the .com’ers) then they’re in that “elite” group & don’t have to be in the political party to do it. Just find a way to get money, That’s freedom!

Daryl wrote:Wikapedia says…

"blahvblahblah" wiki-whatever somebody put there – sorry, not a scholarly (or reliable) source.

Daryl wrote:I'd also challenge the assertion that other developed countries aren't as free as the US or as conscious of the need to stay free. Our governments too exist subject to the will of the people.

No government rules in a vacuum. All governments are subject to the “will of the people”. Even if that ”will” is forced at gun point (OK you can rule me if you don’t have me shot!) – Hitler rule at the “will of the people” and the Allies ousted Germanys duly elected leader. (Not that the little nutball didn’t deserve it!)

Daryl wrote:Most of our PMs have come from humble beginnings, and we have a habit of changing the colour of our governments regularly. When some of our potential oligarchs try to unduly influence affairs; we through media (mainstream and social), plus "barbecue chats" ridicule them and point out their self interest. We don't see a need to keep a personal arsenal to violently bring them to heel.

(PMs – British I presume?) Yes, since, so far, none of your leaders have felt themselves in a position to say: “well now I’m going to be in charge from now on”, unless you count the 2 Charles’s or Oliver Cromwell & perhaps a few others. The position in the British government of supreme dictator is the King (or Queen as the case at the time) that particular position has been rendered more of a figurehead position for the bureaucracy. For anyone else to take the position of dictator they would have to over-though the whole system & replace the hereditary monarchy with them selves – that would take a major civil war or a much larger amount of political clout than any one person is ever likely to come by. Or another Charles I (no jib at Prince Charles intended) comes along within the royal family and sets about restoring the power of the monarchy & stripping the power from Parliament. We don’t have that place-holder here. We have to do it ourselves.

Where do I start MAD-4A?
One quick pointer is that I'm not British as a look to the left would show. Mind you only 12,000kms out.

The idea of not having a King was common to many countries long before the US existed, and is not crazy.

As I pointed out it hasn't worked so far in the US, in that by any impartial analysis the US is further along the path to oligarch control than most. I agree that Wikapedia is not an authorative source except that it quoted sources that were, and a quick Google will supply lots more. Definitely not "larger minority than most" holding the reins, but much smaller & determined to keep it that way.

Regarding "the liberal socialists are so adamant about taking them – they can’t turn us into a socialist dictatorship while we have them", I wouldn't regard myself as a liberal socialist, however I'd agree that I and most educated people in the developed world would hold views that you would call "liberal socialist". I've got news for you! We have much more interesting things to do than taking antiquated weapons off the rednecks of the USA, so we can have the dubious pleasure of administering their lives for them.

Regarding a "placeholder" interim dictator I can assure you that we don't regard Liz as having any political significance at all. Good for UK tourism & the blue rinse set magazines.

One final minor point I'd raise is that while I try not to be a grammar Nazi, you should look more to your writings as poor grammar tends to devalue your argument. Don't depend on your spell checker as it doesn't distinguish between through, thorough, and threw. There were others but they stood out.

You really don´t have much of a clue beyond your prejudices do you MAD-4A?

It saddens me to see someone with such a name so disconnected from reality.

MAD-4A wrote:By taking away guns (like Hitler did to Germany in the 30's)

I´m sorry, say what?

The gun legislation of 1938, lowered the minimum age for gun permits, extended the period for permits from 1 to 3 years and limited the need for permits to handguns.

NSDAP people automatically got excluded and jews were totally banned from weapons or anything like it.


The previous legislation from 1928 made it possible to have guns at all, as there was a total ban from 1919.

Got any more lies?

MAD-4A wrote:By Americans having the right to have guns, we take some of that power (the power of the gun - which is the basis of ANY political power) away from the politicians and put it (literally) in the hands of the people!

Delusional. Political power can come in many forms, and the people of USA having access to guns or not doesn´t really matter at all.

Why? Because there always seems to be more people willing to follow orders, and people with guns can never fight against an actual military.

And as i´ve said before, your right is to have a militia. And that right exists since the original intent of the USA was to not have an army, at all. To avoid the trappings of imperialism you see.

MAD-4A wrote:The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting, its about defending your freedom!

Quite so. Your freedom of not being conquered by an outside invasion force.

MAD-4A wrote:Is so when some uppity Washington crony decides he doesn’t need your consent to be in charge

So, why is USA so heavy on cronyism NOW then?

MAD-4A wrote:You & ½ a billion other free Americans can grab your guns

I wonder how many people you think there is in USA...

MAD-4A wrote:march down to Washington & say “NO you ain’t!” and have something besides a pointing finger to back you up.

Naive... If you go marching with weapons, then regardless if you´re right or wrong, the government has not just a reason, but even an obligation to stop you, and unless they´re being totally obvious about it, the military will still follow orders and you either run home or get killed.

Simplified of course...

Remember what happened in Tianemen square in China? The government didn´t dare to interfere with the protest at first. Then some protesters started bringing in weapons, and started taking the occasional shot against the military.
That´s when it turned into an "incident".

Police and military have big problems with following orders if those tell them to shoot innocent people. But once those people start shooting at them, then it becomes an easy call.

MAD-4A wrote:That’s why the socialist liberals are so adamant about it.

Socialist liberals? Wow, delusional much?

MAD-4A wrote:They can’t pull a “Haven” until they pull our guns away.

Naive...

MAD-4A wrote:Anyone who’s against gun rights is against the 2nd amendment. Which is part of the bill of rights. That means they’re against the bill of rights so by default they’re against the 1st amendment’s free speech – so they should SHUT UP!

*ROFLMAO*

You don´t mean to, but you´re funny.

MAD-4A wrote:So was the idea of not having a king.

Oh i´m quite happy to have a king you know. It´s so nice to have the highest representative of the nation almost completely without even a hint of power.

But the idea of not having a king being normal is as already noted, something long preceeding USA, making your attempt at a point mostly comical.

MAD-4A wrote:It’s worked so far – that’s why the liberal socialists are so adamant about taking them – they can’t turn us into a socialist dictatorship while we have them.

I´d be more worried about ANY kind of dictatorship if i was you.

MAD-4A wrote:Wrong – the wealth is concentrated with the people.

Emphasis on "concentrated" yeah. How was it, 80% of USAs assets owned by the richest 1% IIRC?

Yup, definitely an oligarch system.

MAD-4A wrote:But with a larger minority than most &, more important, it’s with citizens - NOT some elite group of political leaders, who take everyone else’s wealth & stuffs it in their own pockets (like socialist countries).

Actually, you have a smaller minority owning more than most other nations.

No, instead of an elite group of political leaders, you just have an elite group of financial leaders that CONTROL your political leaders.

And coming from a country often called socialist, i can barely speak because i´m laughing so hard at your ignorance and prejucides.

Selfenrichment is something you will find vastly more of in your own backyard than over here. And here that even includes after 7 years of a rightwing government that has been the worst in that direction for as far back as i know. But even it´s corruption and cronyism pales in comparison to what is NORMAL in USA.

MAD-4A wrote:Just find a way to get money, That’s freedom!

And studies show that USA is one of the least financially mobile across generations. I recall the study in early 2000s that found that you were 4 times as likely to improve on your sociofinancial position compared to your parents, in Sweden, than in USA. With USA down near the bottom.

So yeah, you have the freedom to be empoverished! Enjoy!

MAD-4A wrote:"blahvblahblah" wiki-whatever somebody put there – sorry, not a scholarly (or reliable) source.

Actually it is on average VERY reliable. And as you´re not allowed to write "whatever" without referencing sources, it´s often a decent place to find reliable sources.

But of course, it´s all part of that big evil conspiracy to steal your guns right?


#####

PeterZ wrote:Which goes right to MAD-4A's underlying but unstated point. The rest of the world ultimately doesn't care if their oligarchs have an easy time concentrating control over their nations.

Complete rubbish. And coming from USA, the land of the oligarchs? Yeah, hypocrisy much?
You have two parties and in both, the only way to get the cash needed for elections is to suck up to the oligarchs.

PeterZ wrote:Too much power resides in government and large corporations/organizations for the individual to have much liberty. Both have become almost extensions of the same group of oligarchs.

Because you made it so easy for them. And funny thing you know, the only realistic way to curb oligarchs is to have a stronger government. Nothing else really works.

PeterZ wrote:We Americans who value our social contract can only wonder how anyone can open their society so completely to power hungry oligarchs?

Spoken by someone in the most oligarch-dense nation in the world. That´s just funny.

#####

Donnachaidh wrote:The amount of ignorance displayed in this post is staggering. To all of the non-US people, I'm sorry.

I´m afraid to say, we´re used to it.

"Sigh"

Why don't we all agree to disagree on this?

No one is wrong, no one is right and no single type of government system is absolutely perfect. They're all different responses to the same challenge - how do you govern?

What's suitable for the US won't necessarily work elsewhere, nor will what is normal in, say, the UK will work somewhere else. In the US, the individual's rights are paramount. In the UK the individual also has rights (not too different from the US, minus the gun bit! ) but there is also a "collective" mentality where the individual must play second fiddle to society as a whole. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, to borrow a phrase from Star Trek.

We're dealing with fundamentals of national character here, so no way in hell are we going to agree with one another!

Mike.

Daryl,

No one can stop oligarchs from arising. There will always be those that are better at gaining wealth and influence no matter the economic or political system.

It is easier to gain wealth in the US. It follows there are a higher percentage of uber wealty here. That means the wealth controlled by our oligarchs are spread over a larger percentage of the population. In most other countries there are fewer wealthy outliers. That suggests to me that control of those nations lie in a smaller set of hands the is true for the US.

Our focus on liberty, then, has increased our representation in our halls of power and influence. This is true even in representation in our oligarchs. I would say the "guns" contribute nicely.

Ghandi was fortunate enough to be confronting GB at a time when GB was becoming averse to using force to oppress it's empire plus the US was pressuring them to reliquish their empire. Any serious use of seriously deadly force would have had disastrous political consequences unless Ghandi had employed violent resistance which could have been used to justify force. It was a brilliant strategy that is applicable only in certain circumstances. The Bristish in 1930 would have simply killed him along with may be 1 million followers.

MAD-4A wrote:

PeterZ wrote:…Ghandi managed without large scale use of guns...

I didn’t say it required the large scale “use” of guns. But still comes from the gun. Even if that power is from the indirect threat of their use. When Gandhi was leader of India did he ban the police or military from all use of firearms? Also I believe his independent political leadership was quite short & threw the use of a gun.

Daryl wrote:I meant to say that it appears crazy to those outside.

So was the idea of not having a king.

Daryl wrote:I'd challenge the theory that this is an effective control to stop oligarchs taking over,

It’s worked so far – that’s why the liberal socialists are so adamant about taking them – they can’t turn us into a socialist dictatorship while we have them. (or as Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto put it: You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. – that includes political insurrectionists.)

Daryl wrote:as from statistics it appears that the US is the furtherest of all developed nations down that path already. Certainly the concentration of wealth and influence amongst a very small percentage of the population seems highest there.

Wrong – the wealth is concentrated with the people. Even if it isn’t a majority (that’s never going to happen with any society). But with a larger minority than most &, more important, it’s with citizens - NOT some elite group of political leaders, who take everyone else’s wealth & stuffs it in their own pockets (like socialist countries). Its people who worked for it, or inherited it from someone who did. The political leaders who are rich come mostly from that inherited group (the Kennedy money came from bootlegging booze!). The majority of the rich in America aren’t even in politics (or got in to it threw their business interests). If anyone can come up with a way to get lots of money (like the .com’ers) then they’re in that “elite” group & don’t have to be in the political party to do it. Just find a way to get money, That’s freedom!

Daryl wrote:Wikapedia says…

"blahvblahblah" wiki-whatever somebody put there – sorry, not a scholarly (or reliable) source.

Daryl wrote:I'd also challenge the assertion that other developed countries aren't as free as the US or as conscious of the need to stay free. Our governments too exist subject to the will of the people.

No government rules in a vacuum. All governments are subject to the “will of the people”. Even if that ”will” is forced at gun point (OK you can rule me if you don’t have me shot!) – Hitler rule at the “will of the people” and the Allies ousted Germanys duly elected leader. (Not that the little nutball didn’t deserve it!)

Daryl wrote:Most of our PMs have come from humble beginnings, and we have a habit of changing the colour of our governments regularly. When some of our potential oligarchs try to unduly influence affairs; we through media (mainstream and social), plus "barbecue chats" ridicule them and point out their self interest. We don't see a need to keep a personal arsenal to violently bring them to heel.

(PMs – British I presume?) Yes, since, so far, none of your leaders have felt themselves in a position to say: “well now I’m going to be in charge from now on”, unless you count the 2 Charles’s or Oliver Cromwell & perhaps a few others. The position in the British government of supreme dictator is the King (or Queen as the case at the time) that particular position has been rendered more of a figurehead position for the bureaucracy. For anyone else to take the position of dictator they would have to over-though the whole system & replace the hereditary monarchy with them selves – that would take a major civil war or a much larger amount of political clout than any one person is ever likely to come by. Or another Charles I (no jib at Prince Charles intended) comes along within the royal family and sets about restoring the power of the monarchy & stripping the power from Parliament. We don’t have that place-holder here. We have to do it ourselves.