NRA Hijinks

[Lucrum]

Eventually, one of these teachers is going to shoot a student accidentally. It's inevitable.

Typical mindset of a dumb ass progressive.
Eventually more children will die in a school bus. So what, you wanna ban school buses, moron?

 

[Lucrum]

SIUYA, Yanks have been on their own on a lot of things the rest of the world finds bizarre. For a culture that was born on the whole idea of militias and the like, it's not surprising America has the culture it does.

Precisely, there is NO real apples to apples comparison between us and Europe etc etc...

 

[SIUYA]

Precisely, there is NO real apples to apples comparison between us and Europe etc etc...

I thought you had a European language, similar institutions to those developed in Europe, populated largely by a European mix of peoples and religion that originated in its current form mainly from Europe....you have gone a different path, but you were not the first to develop many of the ideas. Your real comparison should be to the Anglosphere. (but those thought could be the slight hangover from the wine)

If you really think you have nothing to compare yourself with (or would you think Russia, China and the middle east is a better comparison ) then clearly the US is simply a great experiment that ultimately might fail. I hope it does not, but the reason why it will work and prevail is because people will always want to reinstate many of the free ideals that originated in other parts of the world over centuries.
There are probably more similarities than differences, and the gun issue is one major difference.....but if you really think you have nothing to compare yourself to then how do know whats best? and how do you know whats best for everyone else?
Maybe you think that the freedoms in the US all come from the barrel of a gun rather than the institutions setup to protect you. If so, there is no point debating.....but otherwise it appears the erosion of the actual ideals and institutions the US is founded on seem less important to some than if they can wear a firearm in public. This is one thing many of us outside the US dont get.

Understanding is about comparisons not dogma and blinkers. Ultimately thats why to me the gun issue is about price. This gives a comparison and you can choose to accept the consequences (the price) that goes with it.

Here is a serious question.....if other countries that have directly suffered from the results of the tyrannical dictators in the past have not chosen to re-arm themselves (see post 211) what does that tell you?

 

[SIUYA]

db - I have read the StoneKettle station blog - thanks. He is too moderate and makes too much sense to be interesting.

 

[fhl]

 

[piezoe]

View attachment 143862 View attachment 143863 View attachment 143864 View attachment 143865

Lucrum, though you know that I agree with you that the right to bear arms (read possess certain types of guns) is an inalienable right, and that it is impractical, not to say impossible, to eliminate all of the guns now possessed by U.S. society. At least one of those posters, however, seems inaccurate and attempts to suggest something that isn't included in D.C. vs Heller. There is no complete reference to the supposed quote, by the way. One can read almost anything via the internet, but we have to apply a degree of common sense if we don't want to allow ourselves to be manipulated by those who have impure motives.

I did find this in Heller: "It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. " But this must be placed back into the context from which it came to have a correct meaning with regard to Heller. The same would be true of the supposed quote in your poster. I'd be much obliged if you could find that quote -- the one on your poster -- in Heller. I couldn't!

 

[dbphoenix]

This is an interesting point. .....and I am just rambling here as food for thought with some wine....so take it as you like.

What about the view that the American war of independence had very little to do with militias, taxes etc. This was more the romantic notion history gives it.
It had more to do with protecting English common law rights and they were against any kind of centralised power (including the Roman catholic church) whereby it effectively was a British civil war as they were against taxes without representation...but not just against taxes. Remembering there were still loyalists at the time in the US as well as British supporters of the US in the UK.
The British independents - later known as patriots - then thought it a pretty good idea to ensure folks can stay armed. The US was still a hostile place for many, and yet they realised that often violence worked, as European history taught them this and they did not have the resources for a standing army......hence the gun culture was simply the same as the UK excpet adopted for the environment. It too had a history of dissent - their own civil wars and magna carta etc; except they did not feel the need to stay permanently armed internally (wars against the Europeans needed to be funded and armies raised) .
The early US guys effectively used guns and knew that was part of the price they had to pay at that time.

There is also the factor of the slave trade and that England was readying to abolish it. Given that both the North and South made substantial money off the slave trade, neither were eager to see it come to an end. The South, of course, had a larger stake since slaves were used for production, and without slaves, Southern industry, such as it was, would effectively come to an end.

 

[SIUYA]

I never thought of the slave trade as such an issue, given the slave trade ending was not for at least 25 years plus later....extend this to the final conclusion of the civil war etc. but an interesting take.
It is often forgotten that the Brits were actually far more instrumental in ending it than maybe they are given credit for. That is one of the reasons why I often think the idea of the anglosphere and the reinforcement of rights won over many centuries beforehand makes a lot of sense in regards US history....but in this thread we are talking about gun rights. So lets stick to that.
Which is why I tend to to think it was not until afterwards that the US love of guns occurs. (I am simply speculating here)
For many outside the US and I am sure within the US and this includes responsible gun owners - its always the small minority that give the majority the bad name, and its the fanatics that lead the charge which take the limelight. Often we legislate to account for the small minority.

Lets brainstorm here and imagine - what would happen if the NRA actually said....you know what...we think there is a price to pay and a trade off to make, and the price as our history in the US has shown is that guns work. -- however, they the NRA dont.
They come out with the same BS of escalation which is more people should be armed. WTF?
Now I know this will inflame and these examples are idiotic for some people but what the hell....
Imagine this....we have a problem with heroin, but if more people shot up then maybe they would understand it better. We have a problem with alchohol abuse, but if more people drank then the we would all feel safer as we wouldnt care...We have a probbem with speeding cars, so lets have more speeding cars so more people can escape faster, We have a problem with tyrants so if more people acted tyrannical then it would even itself out as there are good tyrants and bad tyrants.
you get the drift.
If you deny there is a problem, it is idiotic....if you accept there is a problem but also accept that there is a price you are willing to pay then so be it. Who can argue with that.

 

[dbphoenix]

I never thought of the slave trade as such an issue, given the slave trade ending was not for at least 25 years plus later....extend this to the final conclusion of the civil war etc. but an interesting take.
It is often forgotten that the Brits were actually far more instrumental in ending it than maybe they are given credit for. That is one of the reasons why I often think the idea of the anglosphere and the reinforcement of rights won over many centuries beforehand makes a lot of sense in regards US history....but in this thread we are talking about gun rights. So lets stick to that.

I went into the slave trade thing -- which had been chewed over for quite some time before 1807; it wasn't a surprise move -- because the comment had been made that the revolution was all about oppression and taxes and so forth. This is the standard version and the Hollywood version and what most people hold to be true. But there's more to it than that.

Be that as it may, the gun thing is only tangentially about militias. To better understand it, one has to examine the American character itself, and for that, it's informative to look at where it all started, in Jamestown in 1607 (although "started" is a subject for debate). Who came here? And why? What were they looking for? They wanted to get out from under the thumb of the monarchy? Maybe. Many of them were aristocrats, hardly cut out for carving out a living from the wilderness. Or maybe they were adventurers, armed with knife and sword and whatever, ready to capture and conquer and stake their claim as King of the Mountain (it is certain that they were clueless, arrogant, and stupid since most of them died).

But whatever their reasons, they were definitely aggressive. Otherwise they never would have made the journey. Were they aggressive before they emigrated? Of course. Did they become more aggressive after arriving? Well, desperation does tend to make one aggressive, and since they killed all the Indians who tried to help them, they weren't particularly grateful or even reasonable. OTOH, the English weren't exactly laid back when it came to colonialization, so perhaps the aggressiveness stemmed from British culture (Richard III, anybody?). Eventually we became so aggressive (Manifest Destiny and all that) that perhaps the only culture to outdo us in that regard was the Germans.

Can we dial it back? Probably not. But if we don't, the consequences aren't all that difficult to foresee.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Here is a serious question.....if other countries that have directly suffered from the results of the tyrannical dictators in the past have not chosen to re-arm themselves (see post 211) what does that tell you?

That they delude themselves into believing that the lack of guns in society wasn't a factor that helped evil governments come to power.

Gun control in the US is a pointless discussion, because it can and will never happen. We have hundreds of millions of guns on the street - you'll never, ever, ever get them all. You won't even be able to get half of them. Additionally, the vast majority of politicians have no stomach for going after them. Lastly, the vast majority of law enforcement and military personnel support the NRA.

So blather on about it all you like, but it'll never happen.