Dr. Ignatius Piazza wrote: In the past, I have sent you Blog posts that I predicted would make you smile, or made you laugh, or bring a tear to you eye. As you know, I was right about your reaction.
Well, I have a blog for you this week that I must warn, will make you extremely mad. I believe it will enrage you.
I share it with you because every red-blooded, freedom-loving American needs to see it and understand that our CURRENT administration has broken ranks with ALL previous administrations and now supports the greatest threat to our sovereignty and liberty.
Watch this video, then see my comments below, then forward this blog to everyone you know…
Click the video below to play: (video on website)
The US has not signed any such treaty with the UN…yet.
The UN has been trying to negotiate an arms control treaty for years, but past US administrations have never supported such flagrant attempts by the UN to interfere with our sovereignty or strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
However, the CURRENT administration has reversed the long standing position of the US and has publically stated it supports an arms control treaty.
Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty, the Senate would have the power to squash it by refusing to ratify the treaty.
Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty AND the Senate ratified the treaty, then the final check and balance to protect our liberty and sovereignty would lie in the hands of tens of millions of American gun owners.
My question to you is, ARE YOU UP TO THAT TASK?
Or will you go silently into the night as gun owners in not-so-Great Britain, Australia, and Canada have done–surrendering their God given rights of self defense to an increasingly more intrusive, manipulative, and controlling world government?
You don’t need to tell me whether you are up to the task or not.
You need to look in the mirror and answer the question for yourself.
Our Founding Fathers understood that the greatest protection against enemies, both foreign and domestic, was an armed and train populace.
The MORE Americans that become armed and get trained to levels that exceed law enforcement and military standards, the LESS likely we are to ever see the day when Americans must use those weapons to protect our freedom from the UN or any other individual or entity bent on enslaving us.
The Japanese of World War II feared invading the US because of a “rifleman behind every tree.”
Arming and training YOU and every other responsible, freedom-loving American is the short term and long term answer to safety and peace in our country for generations.
Front Sight is here to help you and every responsible American place fear in the hearts of those in the UN who want to steal your freedom.
Here is your ticket. Purchase it and get on board…
A 30 State Concealed Weapons Permit, the world class training that Front Sight provides, and a Springfield Armory XD Pistol awaits you.
I post a different article on this blog each Monday so I look forward to your visit every week.
If you have an interesting photo, story or tip about a relevant topic of interest to gun ownership, firearms training or Second Amendment issues, please feel free to send it to me at:
Mate, honestly, im a commando with a genuine love of guns, but dont you guys just take the whole "right to bear arms" thing a bit seriously?
I just dont get why every fether has to have a gun. I mean, i might get one myself if i move over there.. but.. well.. im not that arsed either way you know? I dont get why its such a big deal when you are denied other freedoms such as not being able to drink till 21 or gamble and such?
mattyrm wrote:Mate, honestly, im a commando with a genuine love of guns, but dont you guys just take the whole "right to bear arms" thing a bit seriously?
I just dont get why every fether has to have a gun. I mean, i might get one myself if i move over there.. but.. well.. im not that arsed either way you know? I dont get why its such a big deal when you are denied other freedoms such as not being able to drink till 21 or gamble and such?
more to the point YOU yes YOU can obtain a FREE pistol when you sign up for firearms training with Front Sight ( by the way have you heard that your second amendment rights are being destroyed by the current administration?.
I'll be honest I kinda skipped along until I saw the free XD thing. Then I got to thinking on the awesomeness of an XDM. Then I got to thinking that, despite the ad saying it has a match grade barrel, its stats aren't materially better than a stock 92FS. Then I got to thinking that Springfield's custom shop can modify the trigger, drop me in a Bar Sto competition barrel, and put me on some right proper tritium night sights. Then I started thinking about how I'd love to get a competition barrel for my 92, then I started moping around because my work/life doesn't permit me to train properly to do righteous shooting competitions. Then I realized I've blown the entire day on Dakka. Then I realized its Friday. All is right in the world. Yea me.
The UN arms control agenda is about the regulation of the international weapons trade; primarily with the intent of controlling illicit trade in firearms. Even if anyone in the US might be worried, they can do nothing about it. The right to bear arms is not the right to be sold arms.
The UN arms control agenda is about the regulation of the international weapons trade; primarily with the intent of controlling illicit trade in firearms. Even if anyone in the US might be worried, they can do nothing about it. The right to bear arms is not the right to be sold arms.
There you are wrong Dogma. People can do something about it.
2010
2012.
mattyrm wrote:Mate, honestly, im a commando with a genuine love of guns, but dont you guys just take the whole "right to bear arms" thing a bit seriously?
I just dont get why every fether has to have a gun. I mean, i might get one myself if i move over there.. but.. well.. im not that arsed either way you know? I dont get why its such a big deal when you are denied other freedoms such as not being able to drink till 21 or gamble and such?
This is why you are a subject, and not a citizen.
What do you think this is the 13th century? If the Queen walked past me in the street i could happily ignore the woman and not worry about being dragged off to a dungeon.
What do you think we all mince around London cowering from the Royals? They hold a cerimonial position and our elected parliment makes the decisions. It aint rocket science.
Back on topic, if i was a 19 year old man in America id be more worried about why i wasnt allowed a beer after my combat tour in Iraq, why i wasnt allowed to go to a bookies and put a bet on my favourite football team and why blue laws infringe on my basic choices in life than being able to have an assault rifle in my bedroom. But whatever floats your boat, as i said, i kinda like guns.. but.. i feel there are more important things to worry about.
This is off topic, but I'd like to point out that I was watching Masters of Horror on the sci fi channel last night, and the guy from Oz used a super soaker to freeze up & kill an evil ice cream man clown ghost. Thus, super soakers are apparently much more lethal than regular guns. So, regular guns should always be legal. I think what really needs to be regulated is the illegal traffic and trade of ghost-killing super soakers. they could be very dangerous in the wrong hands.
mattyrm wrote:Mate, honestly, im a commando with a genuine love of guns, but dont you guys just take the whole "right to bear arms" thing a bit seriously?
I just dont get why every fether has to have a gun. I mean, i might get one myself if i move over there.. but.. well.. im not that arsed either way you know? I dont get why its such a big deal when you are denied other freedoms such as not being able to drink till 21 or gamble and such?
This is why you are a subject, and not a citizen.
This is why you shouldn't drink when you post. Or post at all.
It aint rocket science.
No, it's political science. Something equally as confounding to him.
mattyrm wrote:Mate, honestly, im a commando with a genuine love of guns, but dont you guys just take the whole "right to bear arms" thing a bit seriously?
Well, it's written into the Bill of Rights right after freedom of speech and before protection from quartering troops. Well, ok the 3rd doesn't get much attention but in general we get a bit worked up over anything in the Bill of Rights. Firearms just tends to be the only one that's constantly under pressure to be reduced. Frankly if you had lobbies trying to infringe on feedom of speech as hard as they want to limit the second amendment you'd have give the ACLU an anuerism. Honestly people seem to take many of the other rights just as seriously they just don't have instances of people constantly trying to infringe on them. You've also got lots and lots of gun owners in the country so they tend to react when someone starts talking about tweaking the second amendment. The number of people who want to walk around with " You!" on their shirts or who want to burn flags tends to be significantly smaller and therefore not as loud.
It's also one of the only cases I know of where it's expected that people have to justify why they need a right that was guaranteed them in the Bill of Rights as opposed to the government having to justify why they don't.
I just dont get why every fether has to have a gun. I mean, i might get one myself if i move over there.. but.. well.. im not that arsed either way you know? I dont get why its such a big deal when you are denied other freedoms such as not being able to drink till 21 or gamble and such?
One, given that teenagers can't vote and are usually dependents on their parents no one really gives a damn if they can't smoke or drink. By the time they're old enough to vote most of them can drink and smoke anyways and still don't vote. So there's understandably little pressure to change those laws.
As for every fether needing to own one? It's not about everyone needing to own one, its about why should they not be allowed to own one if they want to?
Well, it's written into the Bill of Rights right after freedom of speech and before protection from quartering troops. Well, ok the 3rd doesn't get much attention but in general we get a bit worked up over anything in the Bill of Rights. Firearms just tends to be the only one that's constantly under pressure to be reduced. Frankly if you had lobbies trying to infringe on feedom of speech as hard as they want to limit the second amendment you'd have give the ACLU an anuerism. Honestly people seem to take many of the other rights just as seriously they just don't have instances of people constantly trying to infringe on them. You've also got lots and lots of gun owners in the country so they tend to react when someone starts talking about tweaking the second amendment. The number of people who want to walk around with " You!" on their shirts or who want to burn flags tends to be significantly smaller and therefore not as loud.
Right to privacy and fair trial have been under fire for years. I don't hear the same level of half slowed mewling there.
It's also one of the only cases I know of where it's expected that people have to justify why they need a right that was guaranteed them in the Bill of Rights as opposed to the government having to justify why they don't.
Good point. I'll use that on another site. Zoinks!
ShumaGorath wrote:Right to privacy and fair trial have been under fire for years. I don't hear the same level of half slowed mewling there.
*Shrug*
I've got no control over what people bitch about. All I'm trying to do is offer some possible insight. As for why people aren't up in arms over those things, "Well I'm no terrorist so it doesn't effect me right?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
It's also one of the only cases I know of where it's expected that people have to justify why they need a right that was guaranteed them in the Bill of Rights as opposed to the government having to justify why they don't.
Good point. I'll use that on another site. Zoinks!
Fair enough Tyr, as i said ive no issue with people owning guns really as i rather like them, just trying to look at the big picture, it must have negative effects right? It makes it easier to kill people.. and many of the best nations to live in with regards to crime levels and such have similarly strict gun control.
As i said, im not really opposed to guns, i like shooting! But.. i dunno.. it seems to me that having one isnt that important these days.
In all honesty, I don't see what the big fuss is about.
When I was in the military, I loved my C7 and treated it well enough to make an Astartes green with jealousy. But did I care that I couldn't actually own one? Not at all. Sure, it would be neat, but it's not something I feel that a person -needs-. Long as I have food, water, a job, and shelter, I'm happy.
Part of the reason that the US has such a negative light is because a lot of the world disregards it as a bully nation full of gun-touting Rednecks, which couldn't be farther from the truth. While I'm sure taking away a US citizen's right to bear arms is like telling a Canadian he can't watch any more hockey, it might be beneficial to the way the rest of the world views the country, and I think that's something to keep in mind. Just because people here can't own automatic weapons, doesn't mean we're miserable or feel that our rights are threatened.
I guess I wouldn't completely understand without actually being American, but I just don't see what the big deal is (Other than the loss of money to both owners and gun shops due to not being allowed to legally own/sell restricted firearms)
Frazzled wrote:
There you are wrong Dogma. People can do something about it.
2010
2012.
Not really. The Security Council has veto power over substantive matters that utilize the UN's ability to create a binding resolution. However, they have no authority over procedural issues; meaning that if sufficient support gathers in the General Assembly an independent committee on small arms can be formed. This committee can then create binding resolutions for all signatory members independent of the actual UN charter.
It doesn't matter what the US thinks if there is sufficient global disagreement.
mattyrm wrote:Fair enough Tyr, as i said ive no issue with people owning guns really as i rather like them, just trying to look at the big picture, it must have negative effects right? It makes it easier to kill people.. and many of the best nations to live in with regards to crime levels and such have similarly strict gun control.
Taking a look at crime rates per capita between the US, UK, Australia, and Canada the United States does have a commanding lead in murders per capita, but that's it. In other stats like rapes, assaults, and total crime in general we're solidly in the middle of the pack or very close to the rest of those countries. So the murder rate is lower but violent crime in general doesn't seem to be influenced that much.
As for making it easier, yes it does, but if you really wanna kill someone you still can even without a gun.
Finally, a very small percentage of firearm owners ever use their weapon illegally, a very small percentage. Why should law abiding citizens lose their right to firearms because a tiny majority of non-law abiding citizens don't?
But.. i dunno.. it seems to me that having one isnt that important these days.
Which is your opinion but a very weak ground to eliminate a right from the Bill of Rights.
All that said, I'm not worried about the UN taking my guns. As far as the government is concerned I don't own any.
Frazzled wrote:
There you are wrong Dogma. People can do something about it.
2010
2012.
Not really. The Security Council has veto power over substantive matters that utilize the UN's ability to create a binding resolution. However, they have no authority over procedural issues; meaning that if sufficient support gathers in the General Assembly an independent committee on small arms can be formed. This committee can then create binding resolutions for all signatory members independent of the actual UN charter.
It doesn't matter what the US thinks if there is sufficient global disagreement.
Er no. The US is not bound by any treaty it doesn't sign and have properly ratified by the Senate. Further, the US is not bound by any treaty deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Further, the US is always free to leave a treaty when it doesn't feel like it.
As management will be changing hands presently I don't view this as an issue.
Tyyr wrote:
Finally, a very small percentage of firearm owners ever use their weapon illegally, a very small percentage. Why should law abiding citizens lose their right to firearms because a tiny majority of non-law abiding citizens don't?
Because Politicians love to blame the many for the actions of the few. Hell, that's why the world even has laws in the first place, if we want to go all the way back to the start.
ShumaGorath wrote:No, it's political science. Something equally as confounding to him.
...Shuma....you owe me a new computer monitor, as I just spat hot tea all over it...and I am so sigging this...
dogma wrote:Not really. The Security Council has veto power over substantive matters that utilize the UN's ability to create a binding resolution. However, they have no authority over procedural issues; meaning that if sufficient support gathers in the General Assembly an independent committee on small arms can be formed. This committee can then create binding resolutions for all signatory members independent of the actual UN charter.
Who cares? The UN has how much power? They aren't going to try and force us that is for sure. Besides, the UN does not have more legal weight than the US Constitution in our country so I don't know why everyone is so scared. Even if it is ratified and signed, by the Senate and the President respectfully, it will still be struck down by SCOTUS.
dogma wrote:It doesn't matter what the US thinks if there is sufficient global disagreement.
Cuz we can see how that has stopped/impeded us in the past....
Frazzled wrote:
Er no. The US is not bound by any treaty it doesn't sign and have properly ratified by the Senate. Further, the US is not bound by any treaty deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Further, the US is always free to leave a treaty when it doesn't feel like it.
You're not getting it. The US doesn't have to be bound by the treaty in order for the treaty to have an effect on the US. Given sufficient signatories, and the proper construction, the regulation of global arms sales will be a de facto control on the US role in the international arms trade. It doesn't matter if the US wants to transact, if no one else is willing to do so.
Frazzled wrote:
As management will be changing hands presently I don't view this as an issue.
That's a nice little faith based statement you have there; especially given recent electoral history with respect to approval and election results (Presidential, Congressional, and otherwise).
Dr. Ignatius Piazza via Lordhat wrote:Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty AND the Senate ratified the treaty, then the final check and balance to protect our liberty and sovereignty would lie in the hands of tens of millions of American gun owners.
This is always funny. What is it that makes you (him) think that you and your neighbours owning an assault rifle or even a 50 cal. machinegun or whatever is going to stop the most well funded and highly advanced military on earth doing exactly what it likes (on your lawn*) should it feel the need to do so.
Feel free to own a whole rack of guns but please give up on the stupid sticking it to the man defending liberty bs will you.
Can someone please photoshop that Clint Eastwood/Lawn picture with him facing down an Abrams tank.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Who cares? The UN has how much power? They aren't going to try and force us that is for sure. Besides, the UN does not have more legal weight than the US Constitution in our country so I don't know why everyone is so scared. Even if it is ratified and signed, by the Senate and the President respectfully, it will still be struck down by SCOTUS.
Why is everyone pretending this thing has anything to do with domestic arms sales? Again, there is a right to bear arms, not a right to purchase arms. If a weapons dealer, particularly a foreign weapons dealer, will not sell you a firearm you have no recourse (outside of anti-discrimination laws in domestic cases), as you have no right to purchase.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Cuz we can see how that has stopped/impeded us in the past....
It amuses me that you're comparing this issue to the Iraq War. They're not even remotely similar. We aren't going to seize weapons from foreign manufacturers because out citizens want a certain type of pistol.
Frazzled wrote:
Er no. The US is not bound by any treaty it doesn't sign and have properly ratified by the Senate. Further, the US is not bound by any treaty deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Further, the US is always free to leave a treaty when it doesn't feel like it.
You're not getting it. The US doesn't have to be bound by the treaty in order for the treaty to have an effect on the US. Given sufficient signatories, and the proper construction, the regulation of global arms sales will be a de facto control on the US role in the international arms trade. It doesn't matter if the US wants to transact, if no one else is willing to do so.
Your statement only works if weapons manufacturers aren't in the US. Here's the problem:
*Smith & Wesson
*Kimber
*Colt
*Springfield Arms
*Remington
*Ruger
*Marlin
*Kahr
*Fulton
*Bushmaster
*Savage
*Mossberg
*Sig USA (der uber krauten gunnen)
*Beretta USA (if you can't have Ducati, have Beretta)
*Browning
Those are just off the top of my head. Plus you have gobs of Eastern European manufacturers, Argentina, and Brazil. I'm pretty sure CZ and Croatia wouldlaugh at any international laws in this area. Thats pretty much everything but Glock, Sig prime, and Walther. So er, what were you aying again?
GUNS GUNS GUNS everywhere GUNS! Won't someone think of the children!!!!!
Frazzled wrote:
That's a nice little faith based statement you have there; especially given recent electoral history with respect to approval and election results (Presidential, Congressional, and otherwise).
You mean where Republicans won two out of the last three elections and a Republican, running against Obama healthcare, is ahead in Massachusetts. thats like Bush winning Berkeley, its just crazy talk...
Your statement only works if weapons manufacturers aren't in the US. Here's the problem: *Smith & Wesson *Kimber *Colt *Springfield Arms *Remington *Ruger *Marlin *Kahr *Fulton *Bushmaster *Savage *Mossberg *Sig USA (der uber krauten gunnen) *Beretta USA (if you can't have Ducati, have Beretta) *Browning Those are just off the top of my head. Plus you have gobs of Eastern European manufacturers, Argentina, and Brazil. I'm pretty sure CZ and Croatia wouldlaugh at any international laws in this area. Thats pretty much everything but Glock, Sig prime, and Walther. So er, what were you aying again?
Replace intent to sell with intent to buy. His sentiment remains the same.
You mean where Republicans won two out of the last three elections and a Republican, running against Obama healthcare, is ahead in Massachusetts. thats like Bush winning Berkeley, its just crazy talk...
Demographic alteration in the middle of a banking and insurance industry collapse isn't too surprising. The housing collapse changed voting districts for obama, and mid stream elections historically have not been a good indication of national trends. How many incumbent presidents were voted down over the lat 30 years?
dogma wrote:Why is everyone pretending this thing has anything to do with domestic arms sales? Again, there is a right to bear arms, not a right to purchase arms. If a weapons dealer, particularly a foreign weapons dealer, will not sell you a firearm you have no recourse (outside of anti-discrimination laws in domestic cases), as you have no right to purchase.
True, but don't act like this will pass, especially since there is way to much money tied up in our own domestic arms industy.
dogma wrote:It amuses me that you're comparing this issue to the Iraq War. They're not even remotely similar. We aren't going to seize weapons from foreign manufacturers because out citizens want a certain type of pistol.
It amuses me that you assume that I was referring to the Iraq War...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:mid stream elections historically have not been a good indication of national trends.
I would normally agree, but with the increasing presence of the news media in our everyday lives, eveyr election is being played up beyond measure. 2006 was indicative of 2008, just as 2010 will be indicative of 2012. That will hold true at least for Congress, but maybe not the Presidential race.
ShumaGorath wrote:How many incumbent presidents were voted down over the lat 30 years?
Just two...one apiece, for those of you who didn't know.
Frazzled wrote:
Your statement only works if weapons manufacturers aren't in the US. Here's the problem:
No, it works regardless of American manufacturers because I made no statement about domestic sales. In fact I've specifically said that domestic sales are irrelevant to this matter except insofar as they are the result of prior, international sales, or direct deals with overseas dealers.
Frazzled wrote:
Those are just off the top of my head. Plus you have gobs of Eastern European manufacturers, Argentina, and Brazil. I'm pretty sure CZ and Croatia wouldlaugh at any international laws in this area. Thats pretty much everything but Glock, Sig prime, and Walther. So er, what were you aying again?
As I said, it depends on who signs the treaty, and how the treaty is constructed. You're arguing about what you believe to be likely, and I really don't care. I'm simply stating what's possible vis a vis US authority over international matters.
Frazzled wrote:
You mean where Republicans won two out of the last three elections and a Republican, running against Obama healthcare, is ahead in Massachusetts. thats like Bush winning Berkeley, its just crazy talk...
Are you talking about Presidential, or Gubernatorial elections?
Anyway, its not that ridiculous, not given the turnover that occurred in the last election cycle where Republicans lost 14 of 19 races involving incumbents, and failed to win a single open seat; with 11 of those seats being in traditionally Republican districts. In the Senate Republicans lost 2 races, and 3 open seats in recently Republican states.
The party in power at the state level loses favor in times perceived to be difficult (note Republican victories in the last cycle House races), we'll have to wait and see how everything shapes up. Anything else is based on invalid inference.
JEB_Stuart wrote:True, but don't act like this will pass, especially since there is way to much money tied up in our own domestic arms industy.
The whole point of my commentary in this thread has been that our influence isn't necessarily relevant. This can pass without our support, as it doesn't have to be run through the Security Council. And, considering the two primary reasons for passing this type of legislation are financial gains for foreign governments who depend on imported arms, and control over militant dissidents I see the outcome as being at least moderately likely (though probably not through the UN charter).
JEB_Stuart wrote:
It amuses me that you assume that I was referring to the Iraq War...
In recent history the only instances in which we have ignored UN resolutions have been those in which any effect has been tied to our submission to them. In this instance our submission is irrelevant.
Frazzled wrote:
Your statement only works if weapons manufacturers aren't in the US. Here's the problem:
No, it works regardless of American manufacturers because I made no statement about domestic sales. In fact I've specifically said that domestic sales are irrelevant to this matter except insofar as they are the result of prior, international sales, or direct deals with overseas dealers.
What the hell are you arguing? Are you arguing that an international treaty that the US hasn't signed still applies because international arms sellers won't sell in the US, but that somehow the massive plethora of US domestic manufacturers would also not sell firearms into their own domestic US market? What are you on about?
Frazzled wrote:
Your statement only works if weapons manufacturers aren't in the US. Here's the problem:
No, it works regardless of American manufacturers because I made no statement about domestic sales. In fact I've specifically said that domestic sales are irrelevant to this matter except insofar as they are the result of prior, international sales, or direct deals with overseas dealers.
What the hell are you arguing? Are you arguing that an international treaty that the US hasn't signed still applies because international arms sellers won't sell in the US, but that somehow the massive plethora of US domestic manufacturers would also not sell firearms into their own domestic US market? What are you on about?
Any effect reducing the capacity of arms trade and sale within the borders of the U.S. indicates that the treaty is having an effect.
Frazzled wrote:What the hell are you arguing? Are you arguing that an international treaty that the US hasn't signed still applies because international arms sellers won't sell in the US, but that somehow the massive plethora of US domestic manufacturers would also not sell firearms into their own domestic US market? What are you on about?
If the US does not sign the treaty, then the US is not bound by the treaty. However, any state which does sign the treaty is bound by the treaty. This includes and arms manufacturers/dealers located in those nations. As such, any restrictions on the import and export of arms involving those states still apply to people attempting to do business with arms manufacturers/dealers in those states.
I don't know why you think I'm even making a comment on the domestic arms market. I've said about 3 times now that its irrelevant to the conversation as it would be unaffected by any treaty, even one the US signed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Any effect reducing the capacity of arms trade and sale within the borders of the U.S. indicates that the treaty is having an effect.
Exactly. If its harder for US manufacturers to export their products (due to foreign import restrictions), then the treaty affects the US. If its harder for foreign companies to send their wears to the US (due to domestic export restrictions), then the treaty affects the US.
Frazzled wrote:
Your statement only works if weapons manufacturers aren't in the US. Here's the problem:
No, it works regardless of American manufacturers because I made no statement about domestic sales. In fact I've specifically said that domestic sales are irrelevant to this matter except insofar as they are the result of prior, international sales, or direct deals with overseas dealers.
What the hell are you arguing? Are you arguing that an international treaty that the US hasn't signed still applies because international arms sellers won't sell in the US, but that somehow the massive plethora of US domestic manufacturers would also not sell firearms into their own domestic US market? What are you on about?
Any effect reducing the capacity of arms trade and sale within the borders of the U.S. indicates that the treaty is having an effect.
but it wouldn't. It would just mean people buy more Springfields than Glocks. Domestic sales improvement for the WiN!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:What the hell are you arguing? Are you arguing that an international treaty that the US hasn't signed still applies because international arms sellers won't sell in the US, but that somehow the massive plethora of US domestic manufacturers would also not sell firearms into their own domestic US market? What are you on about?
If the US does not sign the treaty, then the US is not bound by the treaty. However, any state which does sign the treaty is bound by the treaty. This includes and arms manufacturers/dealers located in those nations. As such, any restrictions on the import and export of arms involving those states still apply to people attempting to do business with arms manufacturers/dealers in those states.
I don't know why you think I'm even making a comment on the domestic arms market. I've said about 3 times now that its irrelevant to the conversation as it would be unaffected by any treaty, even one the US signed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Any effect reducing the capacity of arms trade and sale within the borders of the U.S. indicates that the treaty is having an effect.
Exactly. If its harder for US manufacturers to export their products (due to foreign import restrictions), then the treaty affects the US. If its harder for foreign companies to send their wears to the US (due to domestic export restrictions), then the treaty affects the US.
Its not irreleevant. the domestic US manufacturers generate the vast majority of domestic sales.
If you're talking international sales from domestic manufacturers-who cares? It has zilch to do with the original post.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Any effect reducing the capacity of arms trade and sale within the borders of the U.S. indicates that the treaty is having an effect.
Exactly. If its harder for US manufacturers to export their products (due to foreign import restrictions), then the treaty affects the US. If its harder for foreign companies to send their wears to the US (due to domestic export restrictions), then the treaty affects the US.
Its not irreleevant. the domestic US manufacturers generate the vast majority of domestic sales.
If you're talking international sales from domestic manufacturers-who cares? It has zilch to do with the original post.
The original post has nothing to do with reality so why does anything Shuma says need to?
Seriously I can't fricking believe the conversation remains ongoing. Have you guys listening to Lord hat even looked into this from a non tinfoil covered neighborhood?
Frazzled wrote:
Its not irreleevant. the domestic US manufacturers generate the vast majority of domestic sales.
Yes it is irrelevant, because this thread doesn't refer to anything which is about multinational arms control through the direct manipulation of domestic markets. A bunch of people got confused when they heard the words 'gun control' in front of some sinister music, and then started talking about how the UN could overrule US domestic law if it passed a gun control resolution. Obviously they cannot, but that's not what I've been discussing.
Apparently we've been talking past each other.
Frazzled wrote:
If you're talking international sales from domestic manufacturers-who cares? It has zilch to do with the original post.
I'm also talking about domestic sales from international manufacturers; particularly those international manufacturers who do not assemble in the United States (the sort of corporations which would be under foreign export restrictions). That's the manner in which a treaty to which we are not signatories can affect US affairs.
My filter that filters certain things, won't let me see the site,as it is unde the category of weapons, which is banned. from what i can see, any arms control treaty would be like, no cop killer bullets for the local populace, no automatic weapons, no bazookas. i'm all for the right to bear arms, but when will i need fully automatic weapons and RPGs to defend my house?
Maybe I'm watching a different video or reading a different article.
The article and video have nothing to do with RPG's and full autos isthatmycow. They are wanting the US to sign their treaty making it illegal for US citizens to own small arms, aka pistols and hunting rifles, NOT rpgs's (which to own legally you need to fill out a million forms and pay huge sums of money so beyond most peoples means anyway).
From what I'm seeing this treaty has more than just limiting illegal trade regarding guns. I'm seeing a treaty to make ALL handguns illegal. The only representative in the video who said anything about illegal arms trade having to be stopped was from NZ but the other spokespeople in the video have said, in a nutshell, they want the treaty to ban ALL weapons from the hands of US citizens, handguns included. I am hearing and reading that it's about more than banning illegal trade.
So yeah, it looks to me from the IANSA website and the article with video that it's not JUST assault rifles and RPG's that the treaty wants to ban, and whether or not you own guns or want to own guns is irrelevant. The rest of the world is trying to change or throw out our Constitutional rights.
Funny how the anti-gun people defend so heavily our right to freedom of speech (and that is more or less gone as you can't say anything that might offend someone so you better not say anything at all) but at the same time they say the 2nd amendment doesn't matter or doesn't apply. If I can't own guns then you can't say whatever the hell you want. Oh wait, you can't anyway so I guess we have already lost our 1st Amendment rights. I've experienced it on Dakka. I got a ban for speaking my mind. Thank God the mods are not anti-gun or I'd get banned for speaking about guns.
mattyrm wrote:Back on topic, if i was a 19 year old man in America id be more worried about why i wasnt allowed a beer after my combat tour in Iraq, why i wasnt allowed to go to a bookies and put a bet on my favourite football team and why blue laws infringe on my basic choices in life than being able to have an assault rifle in my bedroom. But whatever floats your boat, as i said, i kinda like guns.. but.. i feel there are more important things to worry about.
It's significant for quite a few reasons, the largest of which may be its status as a guaranteed right by the constitution. There's also a general displeasure with encroaching government powers, and the feel of a need to make a stand against it.
I agree with you on the lack of attention being given to the dozens of other infringements against us that seem to go unnoticed (we're doing a great job at this "Land of the Free" thing, aren't we?), although I don't think that abandoning the defense of another right would do much to alleviate this.
ShumaGorath wrote:Right to privacy and fair trial have been under fire for years. I don't hear the same level of half slowed mewling there.
The U.S. Government: Hey there buddy! You know what, you should really give all of those dangerous looking guns to me. Sure there's that second amendment, but you might get hurt! That would be awful!
U.S. Conservatives: What! No way! I'm not giving up my freedoms; once one right is demolished no other right can be guaranteed safety. I'm tired of you always trying to control another aspect of our lives! You'll take our guns from our cold dead fingers!
The U.S. Government: Whoa! Okay, whatever you say. I wouldn't dare encroach on your rights... say, would you mind if I wiretapped your phone lines without a warrant? I know you've got the fourth amendment and all, but there might be terrorists out there! Aren't they scary?
U.S. Conservatives: Wow! Oh yeah, thanks for doing something about those guys! Hey, if you get a minute, do you think you could jail some flag burners?
metallifan wrote:In all honesty, I don't see what the big fuss is about.
When I was in the military, I loved my C7 and treated it well enough to make an Astartes green with jealousy. But did I care that I couldn't actually own one? Not at all. Sure, it would be neat, but it's not something I feel that a person -needs-. Long as I have food, water, a job, and shelter, I'm happy.
(...)
I guess I wouldn't completely understand without actually being American, but I just don't see what the big deal is (Other than the loss of money to both owners and gun shops due to not being allowed to legally own/sell restricted firearms)
It shouldn't be the duty of the county's citizens to justify why they wish to do something, it should be the duty of the government to justify why they are sending their police officers to stop the activity from being done (or punish those who have already done it). To use the hockey example below, I have absolutely no desire to play or watch ice hockey some time in my life; however, I could never condone a prohibition of it. Would you really accept the prohibition of anything that wasn't directly supporting your survival? That would be awfully... easy going, I guess.
Part of the reason that the US has such a negative light is because a lot of the world disregards it as a bully nation full of gun-touting Rednecks, which couldn't be farther from the truth. While I'm sure taking away a US citizen's right to bear arms is like telling a Canadian he can't watch any more hockey, it might be beneficial to the way the rest of the world views the country, and I think that's something to keep in mind.
I would say there's absolutely no reason to keep in mind at all. For any individual to avoid what makes them happy out of fear of being looked down upon by the prejudiced is cowardly; to then force others to do so as well is both cowardly and hugely immoral.
Just because people here can't own automatic weapons, doesn't mean we're miserable or feel that our rights are threatened.
When Mattyrm mentioned assault rifles it seemed like it may have been hyperbole, but now that you mention it I'm starting wonder if there isn't some sort of huge misunderstanding about American Gun control. Assault rifles among civilians are heavily regulated in the United States, requiring a special permit to have in any state, and being prohibited from some states completely (correct? I'm pretty sure on that, but not positive). Assault rifles being held by those with permits are responsible for very few (if any?) deaths in the United States, and even those held illegally don't do that much.
In my experience the front lines of the gun control debate is on handguns; several cities have banned the possession of handguns, and if I recall correctly at least one had the law struck down by a Supreme Court. Automatic weapons aren't a serious issue, mostly just brought up to score fear points for the left.
There's plenty of confusion regarding assault rifles here as well, thanks in a large part to the purposefully deceptive term "assault weapon" (used in an old bill prohibiting certain "military" styled options for semi-automatic weapons including - among other things - a bayonet mount) and to some weapons commonly known as assault rifles (such as AK-47s) being sold in the United States without the ability to fire automatically (thus, of course, making them no longer assault rifles).
George Spiggott wrote:
Dr. Ignatius Piazza via Lordhat wrote:Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty AND the Senate ratified the treaty, then the final check and balance to protect our liberty and sovereignty would lie in the hands of tens of millions of American gun owners.
This is always funny. What is it that makes you (him) think that you and your neighbours owning an assault rifle or even a 50 cal. machinegun or whatever is going to stop the most well funded and highly advanced military on earth doing exactly what it likes (on your lawn*) should it feel the need to do so.
The most well funded and highly advanced military on earth totally has that Iraq situation under control; occupying a nation 20 times as large and 12 times as populous should be no sweat.
Orkeosaurus wrote:The most well funded and highly advanced military on earth totally has that Iraq situation under control; occupying a nation 20 times as large and 12 times as populous should be no sweat.
Yep, a civil war will definitely keep the same rules of engagement as the one in the middle east and the war will definitely take place in all 50 states simultaneously. Still if you're a good shot with that hunting rifle it will definitely stop you being bombed by a gas weapon, or something equally hideous, no... wait...
In my experience the front lines of the gun control debate is on handguns; several cities have banned the possession of handguns, and if I recall correctly at least one had the law struck down by a Supreme Court. Automatic weapons aren't a serious issue, mostly just brought up to score fear points for the left.
There's plenty of confusion regarding assault rifles here as well, thanks in a large part to the purposefully deceptive term "assault weapon" (used in an old bill prohibiting certain "military" styled options for semi-automatic weapons including - among other things - a bayonet mount) and to some weapons commonly known as assault rifles (such as AK-47s) being sold in the United States without the ability to fire automatically (thus, of course, making them no longer assault rifles).
This. Anti-gun lobbyists like to cite any crime involving an AK or an AR or Uzi as a reason to make stricter gun laws when the actual truth is more people are killed each year by handguns than by assault rifles. It just looks more menacing to use the hyperbole "Assault rifles are dangerous and deadly therefore all guns are deadly so should not be allowed". If guns weren't dangerous and deadly than we wouldn't use them to hunt. Would be great if that was the only gun legislation that the anti-gun nuts wanted to pass. They just always try to slip in some provision making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get such things as .22 rifles or .308 rifles or shotguns or handguns.
Also, to compare the lack of a right for 18yo's to drink to an Amendment in the Constitution is just ludicrous. One is actually state-regulated (being 21 to drink IS NOT a federal law, it's state based). There are 19 States where you won't get into LEGAL trouble for being under 21 and drinking. In ALL states you have to be 21 to purchase but ONLY in 31 of those could you get fined for "consuming as a minor". Folks seem to forget drinking alcohol is a privilege, not a right. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Freedom of Speech, Freedom to bear arms, Freedom from oppression and tyranny are a Right.
If someone doesn't like my right to own 200 handguns (I don't but I could if I wanted) that is too bad. It's my right and I'm going to fight for it tooth and nail.
In my experience the front lines of the gun control debate is on handguns; several cities have banned the possession of handguns, and if I recall correctly at least one had the law struck down by a Supreme Court. Automatic weapons aren't a serious issue, mostly just brought up to score fear points for the left.
There's plenty of confusion regarding assault rifles here as well, thanks in a large part to the purposefully deceptive term "assault weapon" (used in an old bill prohibiting certain "military" styled options for semi-automatic weapons including - among other things - a bayonet mount) and to some weapons commonly known as assault rifles (such as AK-47s) being sold in the United States without the ability to fire automatically (thus, of course, making them no longer assault rifles).
This. Anti-gun lobbyists like to cite any crime involving an AK or an AR or Uzi as a reason to make stricter gun laws when the actual truth is more people are killed each year by handguns than by assault rifles. It just looks more menacing to use the hyperbole "Assault rifles are dangerous and deadly therefore all guns are deadly so should not be allowed". If guns weren't dangerous and deadly than we wouldn't use them to hunt. Would be great if that was the only gun legislation that the anti-gun nuts wanted to pass. They just always try to slip in some provision making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get such things as .22 rifles or .308 rifles or shotguns or handguns.
Also, to compare the lack of a right for 18yo's to drink to an Amendment in the Constitution is just ludicrous. One is actually state-regulated (being 21 to drink IS NOT a federal law, it's state based). There are 19 States where you won't get into LEGAL trouble for being under 21 and drinking. In ALL states you have to be 21 to purchase but ONLY in 31 of those could you get fined for "consuming as a minor". Folks seem to forget drinking alcohol is a privilege, not a right. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Freedom of Speech, Freedom to bear arms, Freedom from oppression and tyranny are a Right.
If someone doesn't like my right to own 200 handguns (I don't but I could if I wanted) that is too bad. It's my right and I'm going to fight for it tooth and nail.
It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment,
It has to do with international crime.
Read the dang document not the nutbars commentary.
If someone doesn't like my right to own 200 handguns (I don't but I could if I wanted) that is too bad. It's my right and I'm going to fight for it tooth and nail.
And here I have to agree with Fate, though some of my opinions differ ,ultimately I too will defend my rights to own firearms.
Orkeosaurus wrote:The most well funded and highly advanced military on earth totally has that Iraq situation under control; occupying a nation 20 times as large and 12 times as populous should be no sweat.
Yep, a civil war will definitely keep the same rules of engagement as the one in the middle east and the war will definitely take place in all 50 states simultaneously.
Are you implying that the modern US army will accept far greater civilian deaths among fellow Americans than in a foreign nation? Please. Even if that they would their tactics would only make the occupation more difficult for them. The idea that we could simply "get tough" (here or there) and occupy an infinite amount of countryside because of it is silly.
Of course a rebellion in only one state, comprised of four people, would fail but there's no reason to disclaim what should be readily obvious: a rebellion that is very small would fail. What is worth saying is that the U.S. Army's advanced weaponry do not come even close to making the invincible juggernaut people often think it is. It is well within the ability of a nation-wide rebellion to bring down the United States government, although for such a rebellion to occur would require quite a bit more public displeasure than we currently have, and would likely end in a lot of destruction by any measure.
A modern rebellion would not be anything like the Civil War, and trying another Sherman wouldn't work. Neither those in the armed forces nor those who would assist the government in maintaining order would tolerate it; there would also not be a relatively even split between states. State loyalty is far less than it used to be, and the huge changes in communication and transportation (not to mention the lack of a trigger issue as area-specific as slavery) mean things would be far more universal. It would be far more equivilent to one of the many wars we have has in which we attempted to occupy hostile ground, or to the various riots and terrorist attacks we've had.
In my experience the front lines of the gun control debate is on handguns; several cities have banned the possession of handguns, and if I recall correctly at least one had the law struck down by a Supreme Court. Automatic weapons aren't a serious issue, mostly just brought up to score fear points for the left.
There's plenty of confusion regarding assault rifles here as well, thanks in a large part to the purposefully deceptive term "assault weapon" (used in an old bill prohibiting certain "military" styled options for semi-automatic weapons including - among other things - a bayonet mount) and to some weapons commonly known as assault rifles (such as AK-47s) being sold in the United States without the ability to fire automatically (thus, of course, making them no longer assault rifles).
This. Anti-gun lobbyists like to cite any crime involving an AK or an AR or Uzi as a reason to make stricter gun laws when the actual truth is more people are killed each year by handguns than by assault rifles. It just looks more menacing to use the hyperbole "Assault rifles are dangerous and deadly therefore all guns are deadly so should not be allowed". If guns weren't dangerous and deadly than we wouldn't use them to hunt. Would be great if that was the only gun legislation that the anti-gun nuts wanted to pass. They just always try to slip in some provision making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get such things as .22 rifles or .308 rifles or shotguns or handguns.
Also, to compare the lack of a right for 18yo's to drink to an Amendment in the Constitution is just ludicrous. One is actually state-regulated (being 21 to drink IS NOT a federal law, it's state based). There are 19 States where you won't get into LEGAL trouble for being under 21 and drinking. In ALL states you have to be 21 to purchase but ONLY in 31 of those could you get fined for "consuming as a minor". Folks seem to forget drinking alcohol is a privilege, not a right. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Freedom of Speech, Freedom to bear arms, Freedom from oppression and tyranny are a Right.
If someone doesn't like my right to own 200 handguns (I don't but I could if I wanted) that is too bad. It's my right and I'm going to fight for it tooth and nail.
It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment,
It has to do with international crime.
Read the dang document not the nutbars commentary.
It is, once again another way for legislatures to have a say in gun laws. It is the same knee-jerk reaction to the apparent 95% of all guns going into mexico from the US argument.
Not to mention I find it VERY, VERY, VERY hypocritical of countries like the UK and Australia and Canada to tell us to NOT but into foreign affairs that we have no place butting into ONLY for them to turn around and do the same thing to us by saying "we think you should agree with our treaty cracking down on illegal weapons, even if it does infringe on the rights of your people Mr. President."
Who's butting in on who's affairs now?
If I was 100% certain that a treaty making certain activity related to gun trade and sales illegal without infringing on my rights I'd be all for it but it doesn't. It specifically targets handguns. Any Bill allowing handguns to be regulated in a treaty regulating illegal sales and trade of handguns (as shown in the video with China and Australia's leaders being "anti-any kind of gun" (and really, who the feth trades handguns illegally? It's AK's and AR's, not .38S&W's) is going to find a provision or 2 in it putting even MORE regulations on handguns owned in the US. Politicians on both sides like to do that. Write a Bill they know will get passed and include provisions, that on their own wouldn't but when made part of a larger Bill will because the Bill as a whole gets passed so the provisions that have nothing to do with the Bill are now made into law because of a loophole.
It is, once again another way for legislatures to have a say in gun laws. It is the same knee-jerk reaction to the apparent 95% of all guns going into mexico from the US argument.
Not to mention I find it VERY, VERY, VERY hypocritical of countries like the UK and Australia and Canada to tell us to NOT but into foreign affairs that we have no place butting into ONLY for them to turn around and do the same thing to us by saying "we think you should agree with our treaty cracking down on illegal weapons, even if it does infringe on the rights of your people Mr. President."
Who's butting in on who's affairs now?
If I was 100% certain that a treaty making certain activity related to gun trade and sales illegal without infringing on my rights I'd be all for it but it doesn't. It specifically targets handguns. Any Bill allowing handguns to be regulated in a treaty regulating illegal sales and trade of handguns (as shown in the video with China and Australia's leaders being "anti-any kind of gun" (and really, who the feth trades handguns illegally? It's AK's and AR's, not .38S&W's) is going to find a provision or 2 in it putting even MORE regulations on handguns owned in the US. Politicians on both sides like to do that. Write a Bill they know will get passed and include provisions, that on their own wouldn't but when made part of a larger Bill will because the Bill as a whole gets passed so the provisions that have nothing to do with the Bill are now made into law because of a loophole.
Did you read it?
Can you even read?
And in answer to you question criminal gangs opererating in the Northen US are bringing us in Canada a constant supply of handguns.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Are you implying that the modern US army will accept far greater civilian deaths among fellow Americans than a foreign nation? Please. Even if that they would (they wouldn't) their tactics would only make the occupation more difficult for them. The idea that we could simply "get tough" (here or there) and occupy an infinite amount of countryside because of it is silly.
If you're armed you're a militia and you aren't civilians any more so it's a meaningless question. The answer is that militia casualties will be high and the 'rules of war' only apply to attacking citizens of foreign sovereign nations not to 'terrorists', which is what you'd be (even if you weren't).
I'm not arguing that that a civil war of any scale is probable, I'm arguing that the government would win (easily) and increasing the amount of firepower you own won't make you any safer.
Derp, Derp. I read it. It mentioned in several places regulating handguns as well.
Changing a law (or in this case a guaranteed right) just to make a few nutjobs too scared of their own goddamn shadow happy is infringing on the 2nd amendment.
Hmm.......let me get this straight? You are for something that will make it apparently harder for CRIMINALS to bring guns into your country that will also affect law abiding citizens in the US (and it will).
What part of "Criminal" do you not understand? Criminals don't care how how or what gun laws go into effect. The fact that you said "criminals are bringing them into the country" and not "law abiding citizens are bringing them into the country" shows me that both the US and the Canadian border patrols aren't doing their jobs, not that US citizens owning guns is the problem.
You fail to realize, being in a country where guns are illegal or heavily regulated, is that it doesn't affect your country (or UK or Japan or China or Australia) for that matter because only the military or very very select few people with a knock out good reason can have guns.
Again, small arms (aka hand guns) were mentioned as targets of illegal trade. It doesn't take a global treaty denying the US citizens of it's right to own handguns to stop or slow down the illicit activity in the first place. It takes the Canadian government and the US and UK and Japanese and Australian governments getting off their goddamn laurels and doing their jobs.
I did read the article and small arms were mentioned. Small armes =/= rpg's and uzi's and ak47's. Small arms are semi-auto pistols and revolvers. Perhaps you should learn to read.
George Spiggott wrote:If you're armed you're a militia and you aren't civilians any more so it's a meaningless question. The answer is that militia casualties will be high and the 'rules of war' only apply to attacking citizens of foreign sovereign nations not to 'terrorists', which is what you'd be (even if you weren't).
So now your plan is to "get tough" with only those you know beyond all reasonable doubt to be working against you? I'm not sure you understand guerrilla warfare. There is no dividing line, there is a long spectrum of loyalty and support to either faction (or to "any faction", as it would be unlikely for there to only be two) and it is exceedingly difficult to know where anyone can be placed on that line. What is this special treatment we have given the known members of the Vietcong? What is the special treatment we've given Taliban members and other insurgents in the Middle East? Do you plan to put them in a brass bull and cook them or something? Torture won't get you far, especially with the lack of centralized authority being faced. I really do want to know what inspired plan would allow the US government to control Iraq 10 times over, but only ever effect those who are truly your enemies; surely we should put them into place right now. UN be damned, we have a magic bullet.
I'm not arguing that that a civil war of any scale is probable,
Nor am I, as I don't think it's especially likely.
I'm arguing that the government would win (easily) and increasing the amount of firepower you own won't make you any safer.
But this has been disproved a dozen times. Once again, Iraq. Afghanistan. Vietnam. These were all far easier conflicts than a civil war could easily be, and the U.S. Army still flounders during their occupation, again and again. Now imagine the public outcry to collateral damage is increased tenfold. The economic ability to support the occupation severely diminished. This isn't a pitched battle between Abrams and bearded men with shotguns.
Okay, I'm seeing a lot of freakouts in this thread. Just wanted to clear a few things up.
1) The US is a sovereign nation and is not going to change its domestic policies just to make foreign politicians happy. We don't tell Europeans how to run their countries, and they shouldn't tell us how to run ours.
2) The gun-owning population is too large and too powerful politically (NRA anyone?) to risk pissing off. To do so would be political suicide. The most left-wing politicians can do is talk about making tougher gun laws to keep their gun-hating voters happy
3) The US military WILL NOT, I say again NOT engage in military action against a justified overthrow of the government (justified meaning the government had violated the Constitution, and yes, banning the sale or ownership of private firearms is unconstitutional). The US armed forces swore to support and defend the Constitution, not the President. Therefore, if an administration that had so violated the Constitution was to order the military to put down a rebellion, the military would have no obligation to follow that order.
And before anyone says anything, yes, that is an AK-47 I have in my photo, and no, it is not fully automatic. It is no different than a semiautomatic hunting rifle in function. Its classification as an "assault rifle" is based purely on aesthetics.
Orkeosaurus wrote:But this has been disproved a dozen times. Once again, Iraq. Afghanistan. Vietnam. These were all far easier conflicts than a civil war could easily be, and the U.S. Army still flounders during their occupation, again and again. Now imagine the public outcry to collateral damage is increased tenfold. The economic ability to support the occupation severely diminished. This isn't a pitched battle between Abrams and bearded men with shotguns.
You were telling me how your guns make you safer, no? It doesn't matter how difficult guerilla wars are it matters how much safer you are because you have a gun.
Nobody ever mentions the Boer war when discussing guerilla wars (the Boers were armed as a populace), how will having a gun(s) keep you out of the 'internment' camps? If you or your group resist you're an identifiable target and your rifle will not stop them, there's no reason to assume they'll be any less determined than you they have more resources and more manpower (the Federal government will by default in a (former?) democracy be the largest group) there are not only no rules but they make them up as they go along.
Fateweaver wrote:I've experienced it on Dakka. I got a ban for speaking my mind. Thank God the mods are not anti-gun or I'd get banned for speaking about guns.
That's not how the 1st Amendment works or what it says, and you know it.
Fateweaver wrote:
The article and video have nothing to do with RPG's and full autos isthatmycow. They are wanting the US to sign their treaty making it illegal for US citizens to own small arms, aka pistols and hunting rifles, NOT rpgs's (which to own legally you need to fill out a million forms and pay huge sums of money so beyond most peoples means anyway).
No, that's not what they're discussing at all. That entire video is a lie, an absolute, unmitigated lie.
The Resolution Discussed in the Video wrote:
Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms
and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on
private ownership, exclusively within their territory,
YourDictionary.com wrote: A basic or foundational right, derived from natural law
In none of the natural law theories I have read, is the right to bear arms, therefore the right to bear arms is a man made right only found in America and a by-product of a civil war, which has out lived its purpose
Not really, we stamped out prohibition and we can (and should) do it with the second amendment. The constitution was designed to be able to be changed to keep up with the needs of the populous for a reason.
Especially when the best argument gun nuts can muster is that they are trying to use the law to control the spread of illegal weapons. And that its somehow a bad thing.
George Spiggott wrote:You were telling me how your guns make you safer, no? It doesn't matter how difficult guerilla wars are it matters how much safer you are because you have a gun.
Heh? I don't recall having said that guns make you safer, and I certainly haven't said so in the context of nation-wide anarchy.
I said the fact that the United States Army is the most powerful military force in the world hasn't stopped it from having a great deal of difficulty in response to occupying much smaller areas than the United States, in response to your assertion that no domestic rebellion could topple the United States under martial law.
Nobody ever mentions the Boer war when discussing guerilla wars (the Boers were armed as a populace), how will having a gun(s) keep you out of the 'internment' camps?
If we were looking at guerrilla warfare during the turn of the century being fought by the British Empire, and not guerrilla warfare in the modern era being fought by the United States, mentioning them would have made sense. There is no parallel at all here. The concentration camps of the second Boer war were useful because they punished civilians, not those taking up arms. To put American citizens in concentration camps would see the end of pretty much all support for the government crumble. The armed forces would have unprecedented desertion and defection, if not an outright Coup d'Etat. Don't forget that there are no lovely supply lines coming in from a transcontinental empire here; supplies come from the place they're supposed to be occupying, and the American economy would nosedive under such circumstances. Scorched earth tactics are burning the grain you and your enemy are fighting over.
If you or your group resist you're an identifiable target and your rifle will not stop them, there's no reason to assume they'll be any less determined than you they have more resources and more manpower (the Federal government will by default in a (former?) democracy be the largest group)
No it will not. The majority of the American population right now are not part of the Federal Government. The majority doesn't even support the Federal Government. If most of the population is stridently in lockstep with the government then the rebellion is a bust, and I have already acknowledged that every rebellion would not successfully topple the American government. That isn't being argued. What's being argued is that a significantly widespread one could, easily, topple it.
there are not only no rules but they make them up as they go along.
The rules are the ability of the government. The government cannot feed an army with a basket of loaves and fishes. The government would not have full (or even a great amount of the) support of the military in the event that the members of the military are firing on their own countrymen, and starving women and children to death. A soldier cannot be inside two houses at the same time. Political instability causes poverty. Poverty causes political instability. Modern communication and transportation mean nothing is isolated. The American military has been unsuccessful in the occupation of much smaller nations.
Ruthlessness doesn't change these facts. If Emperor Palpatine was president and congress was composed of 535 clones of Hitler it wouldn't change the abilities at their disposal.
YourDictionary.com wrote: A basic or foundational right, derived from natural law
In none of the natural law theories I have read, is the right to bear arms, therefore the right to bear arms is a man made right only found in America and a by-product of a civil war, which has out lived its purpose
fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal [fuhn-duh-men-tl] Show IPA Use fundamental in a Sentence –adjective 1. serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure. 2. of, pertaining to, or affecting the foundation or basis: a fundamental revision. 3. being an original or primary source: a fundamental idea. 4. Music. (of a chord) having its root as its lowest note. –noun 5. a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part: to master the fundamentals of a trade. 6. Also called fundamental note, fundamental tone. Music. a. the root of a chord. b. the generator of a series of harmonics. 7. Physics. the component of lowest frequency in a composite wave. Origin: 1400–50; late ME < ML fundāmentālis of, belonging to a foundation. See fundament, -al 1
Related forms: fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅i⋅ty, fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ness, noun fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ly, adverb
Squig_herder wrote:In none of the natural law theories I have read
You answered your own question, you need to read more. Just becuase it isn't what you have read doesn't mean it hasn't been written. I haven't read Harry Potter but I know it exists.
YourDictionary.com wrote: A basic or foundational right, derived from natural law
In none of the natural law theories I have read, is the right to bear arms, therefore the right to bear arms is a man made right only found in America and a by-product of a civil war, which has out lived its purpose
I take it you've never read any Hobbes, or Locke.
Anyway, natural law is societal construct that arises from the need to for individuals to adopt a set of basic assumptions upon which to found a moral system. This system will inevitably reflect the environment in which it is formed, and lead inexorably to a cultural bias from which emotive decisions can be made.
To put it another way: natural law itself is a man made construct, so rejecting anything on the basis of it being "man made" is absolutely preposterous.
Being allowed to drink alcohol was never a right. No article in the Bill of Rights declares the ability to drink alcohol a God-given right.
Drinking alcohol is a privilege (though I'm sure some feel it SHOULD be a right).
I can promise if the administration tries to stamp out the second amendment we'll see the end of the government. The military wouldn't stand for it (I'm willing to bet nobody in the military is pro gun ban) and who would protect the government from it's own military and citizens?
Not to mention when the US turns upon itself (and it would) any one of the terrorist countries would be on standby ready to wipe us off the globe as soon as the dust settled.
It might sound off the wall but trying to or stamping out the 2nd Amendment would see the end of our country as we know it.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
IntoTheRain wrote:Not really, we stamped out prohibition and we can (and should) do it with the second amendment.
What?
18th and 21st Amendments?
We stamped out the 21st? That makes no sense. Why would be get rid of the amendment that gets rid of the amendment. That would be just silly.
Just off the top of my head one difference between the 19th and the 2nd is that the 19th isn't in the Bill of Rights. The first 10 are the ones you really really screw with (you can try to clarify and such) if you want serious domestic problems.
Having worked my way through all the posts, I have to say it's interesting to see that it appears that a vast majority of the American posters have, a real distrust of government. Given that you've beena round for over 200 years and the sole purpose of creating the US was to have a country that was free of this type of dissent... you don't seem to of done a very good job. Even if you have the party of your choice in, you still basically don't trust them! You appear to want to be left alone and have to pay none or minimal taxes, with no real input from the Federal government. Just how does a country work that way? I don't mean it as a cheap shot, but you do appear to come across as not really knowing what you want out of a government.
I'd support measures to penalize illegal guns in the U.S. and/or some sort of safety course that mut be taken to own a firearm (nothing that extreme, just something to try and keep guns out of the hands of kids).
I'd love to see Prohibition 2.0 (with tobacco thrown in).
A U.N. treaty to mess with illegal gun trade (and specifically states that it won't mess with the U.S.
s internal affairs), sounds good.
Fateweaver wrote:Derp, Derp. I read it. It mentioned in several places regulating handguns as well.
Changing a law (or in this case a guaranteed right) just to make a few nutjobs too scared of their own goddamn shadow happy is infringing on the 2nd amendment.
Hmm.......let me get this straight? You are for something that will make it apparently harder for CRIMINALS to bring guns into your country that will also affect law abiding citizens in the US (and it will).
What part of "Criminal" do you not understand? Criminals don't care how how or what gun laws go into effect. The fact that you said "criminals are bringing them into the country" and not "law abiding citizens are bringing them into the country" shows me that both the US and the Canadian border patrols aren't doing their jobs, not that US citizens owning guns is the problem.
You fail to realize, being in a country where guns are illegal or heavily regulated, is that it doesn't affect your country (or UK or Japan or China or Australia) for that matter because only the military or very very select few people with a knock out good reason can have guns.
Again, small arms (aka hand guns) were mentioned as targets of illegal trade. It doesn't take a global treaty denying the US citizens of it's right to own handguns to stop or slow down the illicit activity in the first place. It takes the Canadian government and the US and UK and Japanese and Australian governments getting off their goddamn laurels and doing their jobs.
I did read the article and small arms were mentioned. Small armes =/= rpg's and uzi's and ak47's. Small arms are semi-auto pistols and revolvers. Perhaps you should learn to read.
You do realize gun ownership in Canada is not actually that much lower in Canada then in the US? Yes we have a wide variety of restricted firearms in Canada, but come on.
Second, the treaty is specifically regarding the international sale of illicit (which means illegal) firearms. In order to make this work everyone on the playground needs to agree to the rules. That allows everyone who wants to play by the rules to play. There is literally no impact to legit gun owners in the United states because of the following:
Article III
Sovereignty
1. States Parties shall carry out the obligations under this Convention in a manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of states and that of nonintervention in the domestic affairs of other states.
2. A State Party shall not undertake in the territory of another State Party the exercise of jurisdiction and performance of functions which are exclusively reserved to the authorities of that other State Party by its domestic law.
that means no one interferes in your nation's business.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:
The article and video have nothing to do with RPG's and full autos isthatmycow. They are wanting the US to sign their treaty making it illegal for US citizens to own small arms, aka pistols and hunting rifles, NOT rpgs's (which to own legally you need to fill out a million forms and pay huge sums of money so beyond most peoples means anyway).
No, that's not what they're discussing at all. That entire video is a lie, an absolute, unmitigated lie.
The Resolution Discussed in the Video wrote:
Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms
and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on
private ownership, exclusively within their territory,
Wolfstan wrote:Having worked my way through all the posts, I have to say it's interesting to see that it appears that a vast majority of the American posters have, a real distrust of government. Given that you've beena round for over 200 years and the sole purpose of creating the US was to have a country that was free of this type of dissent... you don't seem to of done a very good job. Even if you have the party of your choice in, you still basically don't trust them! You appear to want to be left alone and have to pay none or minimal taxes, with no real input from the Federal government. Just how does a country work that way? I don't mean it as a cheap shot, but you do appear to come across as not really knowing what you want out of a government.
You're actually pretty right on the mark here. Americans DON'T like to put too much trust in government. We like to be able to make our own choices on how to run our lives. We don't like interference and micromanagment from people we don't know and who more often than not become corrupted by politics. Keeping the federal govenment more or less out of people's day to day lives is one of the checks and balances set up to prevent the government from amassing too much power over the lives of its citizens.
One point where you're wrong however is about the purpose of creating the US to avoid such dissent. My friend, dissent is one of the fundamental ideas on which this nation was founded. If everyone just went along with whatever the government wanted, they would be free to do whatever they wanted. I'm not trying to say the government is evil, but too often they think they know what's best for us. It would be like if I was to come along and impose my opinions on you simply because I had more say in the way things were run. If you disagreed with my opinions, I'm sure you wouldn't like me doing that at all. That's how it is with us. We elect our politicians to represent us in the government, but sometimes the influence they have gets to them and they start trying to push through laws based on their personal idealogy. No one ever said our system was perfect, but it is the best one we have, and it has been working just fine so far.
Wolfstan wrote:Having worked my way through all the posts, I have to say it's interesting to see that it appears that a vast majority of the American posters have, a real distrust of government. Given that you've beena round for over 200 years and the sole purpose of creating the US was to have a country that was free of this type of dissent... you don't seem to of done a very good job. Even if you have the party of your choice in, you still basically don't trust them! You appear to want to be left alone and have to pay none or minimal taxes, with no real input from the Federal government. Just how does a country work that way? I don't mean it as a cheap shot, but you do appear to come across as not really knowing what you want out of a government.
You're actually pretty right on the mark here. Americans DON'T like to put too much trust in government. We like to be able to make our own choices on how to run our lives. We don't like interference and micromanagment from people we don't know and who more often than not become corrupted by politics. Keeping the federal govenment more or less out of people's day to day lives is one of the checks and balances set up to prevent the government from amassing too much power over the lives of its citizens.
One point where you're wrong however is about the purpose of creating the US to avoid such dissent. My friend, dissent is one of the fundamental ideas on which this nation was founded. If everyone just went along with whatever the government wanted, they would be free to do whatever they wanted. I'm not trying to say the government is evil, but too often they think they know what's best for us. It would be like if I was to come along and impose my opinions on you simply because I had more say in the way things were run. If you disagreed with my opinions, I'm sure you wouldn't like me doing that at all. That's how it is with us. We elect our politicians to represent us in the government, but sometimes the influence they have gets to them and they start trying to push through laws based on their personal idealogy. No one ever said our system was perfect, but it is the best one we have, and it has been working just fine so far.
I agree with 99.9% of your statement Corvus,everthing except the "things are working just fine" part,as IMO it's obvious that the goverment is leaning more and more into a micro managing/nanny state position.
Tyyr made a fantastic point earlier. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right given in the First Amendment. Therefore, it is not the citizens' burden to argue why they need to keep the right; it is the burden of those who would take away to argue why it should be taken away.
Also, the argument that guns should be illegal to prevent crime is weak. If one REALLY want to obtain a gun illegally, one can. If you try to make impossible to obtain a firearm, you're only keeping them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Those who are willing to use a gun to break the law are willing to break the law to obtain one.
Owain wrote:Tyyr made a fantastic point earlier. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right given in the First Amendment. Therefore, it is not the citizens' burden to argue why they need to keep the right; it is the burden of those who would take away to argue why it should be taken away.
Also, the argument that guns should be illegal to prevent crime is weak. If one REALLY want to obtain a gun illegally, one can. If you try to make impossible to obtain a firearm, you're only keeping them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Those who are willing to use a gun to break the law are willing to break the law to obtain one.
Which has as much to do with the original post as the price of tea in China. The US agreeing to participate in the effort to stop the illicit international sale of firearms is the reality here. Nothing more. It's to make it a little bit more difficult for those illegal weapons to move across international borders that is all.
Wolfstan wrote:Having worked my way through all the posts, I have to say it's interesting to see that it appears that a vast majority of the American posters have, a real distrust of government. Given that you've beena round for over 200 years and the sole purpose of creating the US was to have a country that was free of this type of dissent... you don't seem to of done a very good job. Even if you have the party of your choice in, you still basically don't trust them! You appear to want to be left alone and have to pay none or minimal taxes, with no real input from the Federal government. Just how does a country work that way? I don't mean it as a cheap shot, but you do appear to come across as not really knowing what you want out of a government.
You're actually pretty right on the mark here. Americans DON'T like to put too much trust in government. We like to be able to make our own choices on how to run our lives. We don't like interference and micromanagment from people we don't know and who more often than not become corrupted by politics. Keeping the federal govenment more or less out of people's day to day lives is one of the checks and balances set up to prevent the government from amassing too much power over the lives of its citizens.
One point where you're wrong however is about the purpose of creating the US to avoid such dissent. My friend, dissent is one of the fundamental ideas on which this nation was founded. If everyone just went along with whatever the government wanted, they would be free to do whatever they wanted. I'm not trying to say the government is evil, but too often they think they know what's best for us. It would be like if I was to come along and impose my opinions on you simply because I had more say in the way things were run. If you disagreed with my opinions, I'm sure you wouldn't like me doing that at all. That's how it is with us. We elect our politicians to represent us in the government, but sometimes the influence they have gets to them and they start trying to push through laws based on their personal idealogy. No one ever said our system was perfect, but it is the best one we have, and it has been working just fine so far.
I agree with 99.9% of your statement Corvus,everthing except the "things are working just fine" part,as IMO it's obvious that the goverment is leaning more and more into a micro managing/nanny state position.
Well by "working just fine so far" I mean in general, in terms of the fact that the nation hasn't fallen apart or turned into some kind of dictatorship, which is more than most governments can claim.
Wolfstan wrote:Having worked my way through all the posts, I have to say it's interesting to see that it appears that a vast majority of the American posters have, a real distrust of government. Given that you've beena round for over 200 years and the sole purpose of creating the US was to have a country that was free of this type of dissent... you don't seem to of done a very good job. Even if you have the party of your choice in, you still basically don't trust them! You appear to want to be left alone and have to pay none or minimal taxes, with no real input from the Federal government. Just how does a country work that way? I don't mean it as a cheap shot, but you do appear to come across as not really knowing what you want out of a government.
You're actually pretty right on the mark here. Americans DON'T like to put too much trust in government. We like to be able to make our own choices on how to run our lives. We don't like interference and micromanagment from people we don't know and who more often than not become corrupted by politics. Keeping the federal govenment more or less out of people's day to day lives is one of the checks and balances set up to prevent the government from amassing too much power over the lives of its citizens.
One point where you're wrong however is about the purpose of creating the US to avoid such dissent. My friend, dissent is one of the fundamental ideas on which this nation was founded. If everyone just went along with whatever the government wanted, they would be free to do whatever they wanted. I'm not trying to say the government is evil, but too often they think they know what's best for us. It would be like if I was to come along and impose my opinions on you simply because I had more say in the way things were run. If you disagreed with my opinions, I'm sure you wouldn't like me doing that at all. That's how it is with us. We elect our politicians to represent us in the government, but sometimes the influence they have gets to them and they start trying to push through laws based on their personal idealogy. No one ever said our system was perfect, but it is the best one we have, and it has been working just fine so far.
Sorry it's still coming across as a somewhat twisted system. I think you're anti government for anti governments sake. It's funny, the biggest anti government supporters are the right wing voters in the States, however they let a President take you to war based on facts that were twisted to suit his agenda. The very thing that you rebel against happened.
I've been typing and retyping and I still can't really put into words how very odd you guys sound when talking about your government and the protecting of your freedoms. It reminds of the saying, "just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you". You seem, as a nation, so scared from your history that you're always looking over your shoulder and keeping an eye on "the man". "The Man" who in fact is made up of your own population, so therefore would have the same history as you.
Wolfstan wrote:Having worked my way through all the posts, I have to say it's interesting to see that it appears that a vast majority of the American posters have, a real distrust of government. Given that you've beena round for over 200 years and the sole purpose of creating the US was to have a country that was free of this type of dissent... you don't seem to of done a very good job. Even if you have the party of your choice in, you still basically don't trust them! You appear to want to be left alone and have to pay none or minimal taxes, with no real input from the Federal government. Just how does a country work that way? I don't mean it as a cheap shot, but you do appear to come across as not really knowing what you want out of a government.
You're actually pretty right on the mark here. Americans DON'T like to put too much trust in government. We like to be able to make our own choices on how to run our lives. We don't like interference and micromanagment from people we don't know and who more often than not become corrupted by politics. Keeping the federal govenment more or less out of people's day to day lives is one of the checks and balances set up to prevent the government from amassing too much power over the lives of its citizens.
One point where you're wrong however is about the purpose of creating the US to avoid such dissent. My friend, dissent is one of the fundamental ideas on which this nation was founded. If everyone just went along with whatever the government wanted, they would be free to do whatever they wanted. I'm not trying to say the government is evil, but too often they think they know what's best for us. It would be like if I was to come along and impose my opinions on you simply because I had more say in the way things were run. If you disagreed with my opinions, I'm sure you wouldn't like me doing that at all. That's how it is with us. We elect our politicians to represent us in the government, but sometimes the influence they have gets to them and they start trying to push through laws based on their personal idealogy. No one ever said our system was perfect, but it is the best one we have, and it has been working just fine so far.
Sorry it's still coming across as a somewhat twisted system. I think you're anti government for anti governments sake. It's funny, the biggest anti government supporters are the right wing voters in the States, however they let a President take you to war based on facts that were twisted to suit his agenda. The very thing that you rebel against happened.
I've been typing and retyping and I still can't really put into words how very odd you guys sound when talking about your government and the protecting of your freedoms. It reminds of the saying, "just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you". You seem, as a nation, so scared from your history that you're always looking over your shoulder and keeping an eye on "the man". "The Man" who in fact is made up of your own population, so therefore would have the same history as you.
All I'm saying is that its what works for us. It may not make as much sense or work as well for you, but the same could be said for your style of government. If it works for you, that's awesome, but it may not be what we want over here. We're not anti-government, we're opposed to the government accumulating too much control.
In regards to your position on the Iraq War, it wasn't just the political right who initially approved of it. Only after things got difficult and expensive did people start wondering whether or not that was a good idea, but then again, hindsight is always 20/20. Also, the Iraq War did not affect the rights of US citizens the way an issue like gun control does. Gun control is a domestic issue, while the decision to go to war is a foreign policy issue, and Americans make huge distinctions between the two.
And yes, we do like to keep an eye on "the man" to make sure "the man" never abuses his position, becaue power has the potential to corrupt. It's just a safeguard, most of us don't think the government actually would try to abuse its power, but just in case, we have these checks and balances to be on the safe side. It may not make sense to you, but it does to us. Its a cultural difference I suppose.
Wolfstan wrote:Having worked my way through all the posts, I have to say it's interesting to see that it appears that a vast majority of the American posters have, a real distrust of government. Given that you've beena round for over 200 years and the sole purpose of creating the US was to have a country that was free of this type of dissent... you don't seem to of done a very good job. Even if you have the party of your choice in, you still basically don't trust them! You appear to want to be left alone and have to pay none or minimal taxes, with no real input from the Federal government. Just how does a country work that way? I don't mean it as a cheap shot, but you do appear to come across as not really knowing what you want out of a government.
You're actually pretty right on the mark here. Americans DON'T like to put too much trust in government. We like to be able to make our own choices on how to run our lives. We don't like interference and micromanagment from people we don't know and who more often than not become corrupted by politics. Keeping the federal govenment more or less out of people's day to day lives is one of the checks and balances set up to prevent the government from amassing too much power over the lives of its citizens.
One point where you're wrong however is about the purpose of creating the US to avoid such dissent. My friend, dissent is one of the fundamental ideas on which this nation was founded. If everyone just went along with whatever the government wanted, they would be free to do whatever they wanted. I'm not trying to say the government is evil, but too often they think they know what's best for us. It would be like if I was to come along and impose my opinions on you simply because I had more say in the way things were run. If you disagreed with my opinions, I'm sure you wouldn't like me doing that at all. That's how it is with us. We elect our politicians to represent us in the government, but sometimes the influence they have gets to them and they start trying to push through laws based on their personal idealogy. No one ever said our system was perfect, but it is the best one we have, and it has been working just fine so far.
Sorry it's still coming across as a somewhat twisted system. I think you're anti government for anti governments sake. It's funny, the biggest anti government supporters are the right wing voters in the States, however they let a President take you to war based on facts that were twisted to suit his agenda. The very thing that you rebel against happened.
I've been typing and retyping and I still can't really put into words how very odd you guys sound when talking about your government and the protecting of your freedoms. It reminds of the saying, "just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you". You seem, as a nation, so scared from your history that you're always looking over your shoulder and keeping an eye on "the man". "The Man" who in fact is made up of your own population, so therefore would have the same history as you.
Perhaps this may shed a bit of humours light on the subject.
Cation:profanity.
Wolfstan wrote:Having worked my way through all the posts, I have to say it's interesting to see that it appears that a vast majority of the American posters have, a real distrust of government. Given that you've beena round for over 200 years and the sole purpose of creating the US was to have a country that was free of this type of dissent... you don't seem to of done a very good job. Even if you have the party of your choice in, you still basically don't trust them! You appear to want to be left alone and have to pay none or minimal taxes, with no real input from the Federal government. Just how does a country work that way? I don't mean it as a cheap shot, but you do appear to come across as not really knowing what you want out of a government.
You're actually pretty right on the mark here. Americans DON'T like to put too much trust in government. We like to be able to make our own choices on how to run our lives. We don't like interference and micromanagment from people we don't know and who more often than not become corrupted by politics. Keeping the federal govenment more or less out of people's day to day lives is one of the checks and balances set up to prevent the government from amassing too much power over the lives of its citizens.
One point where you're wrong however is about the purpose of creating the US to avoid such dissent. My friend, dissent is one of the fundamental ideas on which this nation was founded. If everyone just went along with whatever the government wanted, they would be free to do whatever they wanted. I'm not trying to say the government is evil, but too often they think they know what's best for us. It would be like if I was to come along and impose my opinions on you simply because I had more say in the way things were run. If you disagreed with my opinions, I'm sure you wouldn't like me doing that at all. That's how it is with us. We elect our politicians to represent us in the government, but sometimes the influence they have gets to them and they start trying to push through laws based on their personal idealogy. No one ever said our system was perfect, but it is the best one we have, and it has been working just fine so far.
Sorry it's still coming across as a somewhat twisted system. I think you're anti government for anti governments sake. It's funny, the biggest anti government supporters are the right wing voters in the States, however they let a President take you to war based on facts that were twisted to suit his agenda. The very thing that you rebel against happened.
I've been typing and retyping and I still can't really put into words how very odd you guys sound when talking about your government and the protecting of your freedoms. It reminds of the saying, "just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you". You seem, as a nation, so scared from your history that you're always looking over your shoulder and keeping an eye on "the man". "The Man" who in fact is made up of your own population, so therefore would have the same history as you.
I consider myself not to be "anti-government" but "anti-big-government". It's a slippery slope, once you surrender one freedom, regardless of what it is, it becomes obvious to anyone that wants to take advantage of you that you won't put up much of a fight to protect them. I don't own guns because I'm worried about the military kicking my door in because the gays are taking over, I don't even own them primarily to defend my house, (although it's a nice bonus), I own guns so that I can hunt my own food. Food that tastes much better than the crap you can buy at the grocery store. I also feel that regardless of what I do with my firearms, I have a right to have them as long as I'm not hurting anyone, (who isn't trying to hurt me that is). And why should the government be allowed to decide if I can own these particular items? Because it's dangerous? Any more dangerous than ciggarettes? or motor vehicles? or alchohol? or stupid people with pencils? no, statisics show that my ciggies are much more likely to kill me than duck hunting, and my government seems to be just fine with tobacco use, hell they make money from it. It's my life, not the states. But all in all, this UN deal doesn't have me worried about anyone infringing on my rights.
"It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power." - Albert Nock
You didn't include the copypasta where a Republican wakes up in the morning and has his alarm clock regulated by the Federal Alarm Clock Commission and his waffles invented by the Belgian senate in 1856 before watching Fox News?
mattyrm wrote:dont you guys just take the whole "right to bear arms" thing a bit seriously?
Nope. When those UN black helicopters start landing, and pulling their orders off the backs of STOP signs, I'll be ready!
Yeah, i bet thats going to happen. We should all have guns in England just incase the French and Spanish create a new armada and parachute into the UK to force us not to make anymore episodes of Mr Bean.
You!" on their shirts or who want to burn flags tends to be significantly smaller and therefore not as loud.
